If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[nygreenguy]

vvv Critical_Thinker 01-10-2012 post vvvv:
Hi nygreenguy. I really appreciate all your correspondence. You have been very helpful. Would you explain how to use the quote system on this web site properly?

Sure. First, hit quote on my post to reply. The part most people mess up on is the stuff in the beginning and it looks like this:

[quote="

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
Hi nygreenguy. Thank you for explaining how to you quote system. I really appreciate it.

No problem. It looks like you still ar ... ading this for clarification.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I agree. We should not, however, make assumptions that are not supported by convincing evidence either. We know for a fact that engineers know how a car works because we know a car was designed. Understanding all the details of how something works is not the same as knowing how evolution works. Something engineered and manufactured was thought out and designed. Evolutionary theory does not work this way. Evolution (neo-Darwinism) works on random mutations with natural selection. There is no direction, no purpose with evolution. We do not doubt gravity, because when we throw an object into the air, it always drops back down to the Earth.

I think you missed the point. My point that was just because we do not understand something, doesnt mean it doesnt work.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I did not say that since I could not find any information to answer my questions that I would give up and assume it doesn’t exist. I said that “If there is no explanation…[that is, if no explanation exists]� “then I would suppose that there is currently no explanation…� and conclude that no explanation exists. I would not assume that just because I cannot find any information on a particular subject that I am looking for indicates that it doesn’t exist. It only means that I cannot find it. That is why I purchased books, do on-line searches, and am asking you.

Which is why I keep referring you to the primary literature. Books are a horrible place to do research for science because they are not peer-reviewed and they can often contain confusing words and vocabulary that can inadvertently mislead the reader.

I thought that most of my questions were fairly basic and that someone as knowledgeable as you would either know the answer or would know where to find materials that would address my questions. Haven’t you ever wondered how a reptilian heart could have developed into a mammalian heart or how a reptilian lung could have developed into an avian lung? I realize that fossils would most likely are not be able to provide the answers, however, I thought that the subject might have been addressed, similar to how it was hypothesized how the reptilian ear/jaw gradually transformed into a mammalian ear/jaw without the reptile losing either hearing or chewing and biting abilities.

Which is why I keep telling you to look at the peer-reviewed literature! There is a TON of information out there on it.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I really appreciate all the information you have provided throughout our correspondence. You have really been a big help. Thanks.

My pleasure!

[Critical_Thinker]

It's not sarcasm, it's calling you out on exactly what you were doing.

My (Critical_Thinker 1/17/2012 response:
Exactly what do you, Jackelanern, believe I am doing? I have nothing to hide. I am seeking answers to questions I have regarding the theory of evolution. What is wrong with asking questions? No one forced you to respond to my comments and questions. There are others who are helping me just fine. I do not really need your brass comments. I believe that you are so upset by my comments and questions that you could not resist from responding. That is your problem, not mine. If you do not wish to help me, then don’t, but don’t belittle me because you cannot stand creationists.

I told you before that I am only seeking information so that I may form my own opinions to determine whether the evidence better reflects evolution or creation. Just because my arguments are of those of a creationist, it is because I am trying to determine whether creationist claims are true or whether evolutionist arguments are true. Since you do not trust me but believe that I am lying for some reason, it would be difficult for me to communicate with you.

No, you are ignorant of the subject.. This doesn't make you a stupid person, it just shows that you do not know what you are talking about. And you post circular logic and god of the gaps arguments from entirely a position of ignorance. People don't have 10 years to waste here on these forums to teach you basic chemistry, or even biochemistry. Your ignorance of genetics was more than enough to dismiss your argument entirely.

My (Critical_Thinker) 1/17/2012 response:
What is with this “god of the gaps arguments� stuff? Apparently, you have problems with it. I may be ignorant, that is why I am asking questions. I am not trying to defend a particular position, I am seeking answers. In a debate forum, such as this web site allows people to share their views and opinions. This is what I am doing. I am hoping that through the correspondence, I will obtain answers to my questions. If you are able to refute the claims I am making, then by all means, do it. No one is forcing you to respond to my comments and questions. If you do not wish to answer my questions or respond to my comments, that is your choice. But don’t criticize me for making comments and asking questions.

Exactly what is my “circular logic�? Just because I have questions that you are not able to adequately answer, does indicate that I believe in the “god of the gaps.� It only indicates that you have no scientific answers.

As I mentioned previously, and although I know you hate any discussion of fossils, for obvious reasons, I do not expect evolutionists to have a complete sequence of fossils demonstrating that a fish evolved into an amphibian. I do not expect a complete sequence of fossils demonstrating that an amphibian evolved into a reptile. I do not expect a complete set of fossils for every single creature that ever existed. I am however, expecting fossil evidence that demonstrates conclusively that a reptile (or a dinosaur) evolved into a bird. I am expecting a series of fossils that conclusively demonstrates that reptiles evolved into a mammal, and fossils that conclusively demonstrates that a land animal evolved into a whale. For me, that would give the theory of evolution a great deal more credibility than just going on the fossils that are currently available for examination. I suppose you would admit the fossil record is not complete. I am not claiming that transitions never existed. All I am saying is that at present there is very little evidence of transitional fossils. Mammal-like reptile fossils, which I discussed previously, are debatable

If evolutionists claim that life evolved from non-living chemicals (which they do), I would expect this claim to be supported by evidence or at least some acceptable scientific explanation of how it could have occurred. Instead, all I have read to date are hypotheses and experiments that may provide some hint of something. For example, when discussing how life may have developed naturally from existing chemicals on the Earth many hypotheses and theories have been presented.

The problem is that there are still other questions that remain unanswered. These most likely are questions you hate, because they have yet to be explained. You, Jackelanern, may want to try to ignore them, but I am not. And as long as my questions remain unanswered, then my skepticism remains. How could a reptilian circulatory system change into a mammal circulatory system? How could a reptilian respiratory system change into an avian respiratory system? Or, if a dinosaur is now presumed to be a warm-blooded mammal, how could a mammalian respiratory system gradually become an avian respiratory system. Since fossils do not reveal very much soft tissue, I would only expect scenarios and hypotheses to be made. I previously read an account of how a reptilian ear/jaw could have gradually evolved into a mammalian ear/jaw without losing either ear or jaw function. It was very interesting how it could have been done. But it is only a hypothesis that has not been conclusively supported by the fossil evidence. The mammal-like reptile fossils do not adequately demonstrate how a reptilian ear/jaw actually evolved into a mammalian ear/jaw. When one considers all the other changes that need to be made in addition to the bones resizing and rearranging, such as muscles, nerves, etc., the process would be even more difficult, especially if it was accomplished by random mutations and natural selection.

You can't create existence and it's rules. Nor can consciousness exist without causation. Hence, that ends the creationist argument right there. I don't actually need go any further than that.

I believe your problem is that you, Jackelantern, accept evolution and accept it as fact. I am not sure of your definition of Creationism, so I give you what I think it means. Creationism is: the believe that all life, including all nature and science are explainable by the Bible. If that is what you are referring to, then perhaps you are correct. There is a difference between Creationism and one who believes in creation. If you referring to everyone who believes in creation, then you are mistaken. Many creationists are also scientists who study science differently than how you study science. You study everything in light of how it fits in with evolution, while creationists view science in how it works and possibly how it was designed (by a Creator). All evidence is subject to interpretation. Just because you are of one mindset does not necessarily mean that everyone else is wrong. If you cannot prove everything beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it is open to interpretation. It just depends on ones perception.

Currently, through my research, it appears that organisms are only able to change to a certain degree and then are no longer able to change any further.

The only examples you provided were of plants: (1) Oenothera lamarckiana and Oenothera gigas, (2) Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda and (3) Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda. I admit that plants and animals share the same types of cells, however, I do not believe that plants function the same as animals. Animals (even the simplest one) are more complicated than plants. If you see no distinction, then this point is meaningless to you. Your plant examples are similar to the ruby-red grapefruit example when radiation was applied to it. If the experiments utilizing radiation also works on animals, then genes that become mutated that have a positive result would be able to be demonstrated in the laboratory, just as have been demonstrated with plants. There may be some other cause why an organism is no longer able to interbreed with a similar species. It may not have been the result of mutations. I recognize some forms of change, such as ecological selection and sexual selection, genetic drift, speciation, etc., however, I am not convinced that some mutations that cause small changes (micro-evolution) eventually leads to major changes (macro-evolution). This is the subject of this thread (If you believe in micro-evolution…).


And your argument that further changes would never occur takes some serious ignorance in assuming that biochemistry magically takes a permanent vacation.. This which would require total ignorance of even basic chemistry, electromagnetism is, or what all that has to do within a complex adaptive systems that have feedback. Your argument is equal to suggesting that a coast line will never change over time as waves smash into it. This is what systems with feedback entail.

Do you, Jackelantern, have any proof to support your argument? You analogy with a coastline never change from the result of waves crashing into it is meaningless, as your analogy, is based on non-living matter. I never said that species never change. My only contention is that I am not convinced that small minor changes (micro-evolution) eventually leads to major changes (macro-evolution). As much as I have read, it appears that an organism can only change to a certain degree and then it can go no further. You can disagree all you want, but until you are able to demonstrate conclusively that an animal can eventually become a completely different animal, I am not going to change my opinion.

science has not yet been (or appears to never will be able) able to explain some development, then one may be inclined to believe that something or Someone beyond our comprehension did it.

Ok, what did? Seems you are going down the path of self-refuting arguments.

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/17/2012:
No. I am stating that some species changed over the years as a result of interbreeding and natural selection. Also, the possibility exists that if genes are either turned off or on, then changes may occur in a species.

So tell me, are flies gnats? How about mosquitoes? No? Why is that? Is your next argument going to be they are all insects? How about that they are all carbon based life forms! Because by your argument, carbon based life shouldn't be able to diversify.. And this surely shouldn't have happened under your argument:

Are you, TheJackelantern, claiming that a fly or a gnat or a mosquito evolved from one another? Has it been demonstrated in laboratory experiments that a fly could become a creature with an entirely different body type? I do not dispute that all living things have similar chemical makeup. Just because all living things are made up of the same chemicals, does not necessarily indicate that they are related, that is, that one is an ancestor to the other. That would be an assumption based on circumstantial evidence that is open to interpretation.

I read the article you, Jackelantern, suggested, “Evolution, Evolution. Two Species Become One Study Says.� The article was very interesting. I did not read anything in the article that I disagree with. I agree that new species evolve. I believe as creatures produce offspring, that changes occur. I agree in various forms of evolutions, such as: ecological selection and sexual selection, genetic drift, speciation, etc., however, I am not convinced that mutations contribute greatly that eventually lead to major changes. If a genome is mutated to any great extent, it will most likely be detrimental to the creature. That is, if too many genes become mutated at the same time, it would be doubtful if the organism could handle such severe changes. Therefore, only small minor mutations could result in anything positive. Of the majority of mutations that occur, only a very small percentage would be beneficial. I am not sure how much change a species and their descendents could endure before any further changes would no longer be beneficial.

I read elsewhere that even though flies and wasps share similar body structures that have homologous genes and homologous pathways, that it is believed that the share a common ancestor. It was determined, however, that the similar body structures of some wasps from developmental pathways are entirely different from those of fruit flies, and are also different from other wasps. In sharks, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from the cells on the floor of the cavity. In frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. The contradicts what one would expect if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. The eyes of the squid, the fruit fly, and the mouse have different structured eyes. The squid and mouse both have single-lens camera eyes, but they develop along different pathways, and are wired differently from each other. Yet the same gene is involved in the development of all three of these eyes. It is believed that non-homologous genes should regulate the development of non-homologous structures. It cannot be explained how non-homologous eyes from an insect, a mollusk, and a vertebrate could be regulated during their development by homologous genes, such as the Pax-6 gene.
(Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. 2007. Explore Evolution – The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. P. 43-45)

“flies and wasps share similar body structures, and therefore derive, from homologous genes and homologous pathways, therefore evolutionists believe they share a common ancestor. They claim that the genes and pathways that produce homologous structures should have been inherited from a common ancestor. However, the similar body structures of some wasps from developmental pathways are entirely different from those of fruit flies, and are also different from other wasps. Another example of organisms having similar body structures but are not genetically related is the vertebrate gut. In sharks, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from the cells on the floor of the cavity. In frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This is a clear indication that that similar structures in vertebrates can be produced by different developmental pathways. This contradicts what one would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. Biologists have discovered that in many cases the same genes are used to produce different adult structures. The eyes of the squid, the fruit fly, and the mouse have different structured eyes. The squid and mouse both have single-lens camera eyes, but they develop along different pathways, and are wired differently from each other. Yet the same gene is involved in the development of all three of these eyes. Evolutionists believe that the development of non-homologous structures should be regulated by non-homologous genes. They cannot explain that non-homologous eyes from an insect, a mollusk, and a vertebrate could be regulated during their development by homologous genes, such as the Pax-6 gene.� (Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. 2007. Explore Evolution – The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. P. 43-45)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

Abstract:

This two-become-one evolutionary process, common among plants, has long been considered extremely rare and unimportant among animals. The new study, based on a fly species found in the northeastern United States, suggests otherwise.

The Lonicera fly evolved as a hybrid of two existing U.S. species, the blueberry maggot and the snowberry maggot, according to the study. The newfound species is named after the honeysuckle plant (scientific name: Lonicera), which the insect's life cycle revolves around.

Horses are able to change both in appearance and size, however, they still maintain the same general body type.

Evolution is not dictated by body type. And you will have a big problem with that argument when dealing with lizards vs snakes and snakes that have legs to which are not lizards. Hence, it's obvious you have no understanding of evolution or time scales of evolution. And please define body type because horses have several different body types... Horses have four legs and a tail just like a dog. Please define "body type" for us.

In explaining body type, I would say, generally speaking, that a fish has a different body type than a reptile and a reptile has a different body type than a mammal. A frog, being an amphibian, has a different body type than a fish or a reptile. A star fish has a different body type than a turtle.

I believe that Perissodactyls include: horses as well as rhinos. Eohippus (Hyracotherium), Oligohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus (modern horse) may be related.

Different kinds of creatures were created with a great deal of genetic information. Natural selection can eliminate certain pre-existing genetic information, by eliminating creatures not suited to a particular environment. Thus, many different varieties can be produced in different environments. Also, much of this genetic information may have been hidden in the original created kinds. (That is, the features coded for are not expressed in the offspring.) Scientists have also found that genetic information also had other controlling or regulatory genes that switch other genes ‘on’ or ‘off.’ That is, they control whether or not the information in a gene will be decoded, so the trait will be expressed in the creature. This would enable very rapid changes, which are still changes involving already created information, not generation of new information. Note that these changes only occur within a kind. This would be an example of microevolution. Regarding the horse, the genetic information coding for extra toes is present, but is switched off in most modern horses. Sometimes a horse is born where the genes are switched on, and many horse fossils indicate that the genes had been switched on. This would explain, for example, why there are no transitional forms showing gradually smaller toe size. It is possible that body size and tooth shape were also controlled by regulatory genes.

I checked out the various horse bones structures pictured in the web site you, Jackelantern, suggested:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lution.jpg

I would agree they may be related, as I discussed above. My contention is that if one horse evolved from another, it was done through genes switches, not mutations.

I also checked out the artists’ impression of what a Eurohippus parvulus may have looked like. From the drawing, it looks more like a deer than it does a modern horse. I have no argument with the idea that this creature may have been an ancestor to the modern horse. I do not believe, however, that the changes were brought about by small mutations that eventually lead to the modern horse.

Firstly, you posted creation.com... And you literally used creationist talking points to which were circular, and a play for a GOD of the GAPS argument... Don't sit there an pretend like it never happened. That's simply insulting my intelligence.

Mammal like reptiles had similar jaw structures. The ape family does too.. And the amphibians, or even that horse argument you wanted to make falls under the same argument you are making here. All it takes is a change in genetics.

Would you elaborate on “All it takes is a change in genetics?� How do you believe specifically this could have been accomplished, by step-by-step mutations? I mean, for example, how could the ear mechanism in a reptile change to that of a mammal genetically? I read previously how it could have been accomplished in theory. Do you believe the mammalian ear developed as a result of genes being turned on or off, or do you believe that the changes resulted from small mutations that resulted after multiple generations? This seems highly unlikely, especially considering the essential organ of hearing in the mammal, called the organ of Corti, is not possessed by any reptile that I know of. I also do not know of any evidence that would provide any clues of where this organ came from. The organ of Corti is an extremely complicated organ. It is not found in any reptile that I know of. I do not know of any reptile where this organ could have come from. Do you have any ideas on this?

All reptiles have a lower jaw made up of at least four separate bones on each side, and a single bone in each ear.

This information is very descriptive and interesting, however, it does not conclusively demonstrate that a reptilian ear/jaw transitioned into a mammalian ear/jaw. Especially that it does not address the comment made by Francis Hitching: “All reptiles have a lower jaw made up of at least four separate bones on each side, and a single bone in each ear. In every known mammal, either alive or extinct, the opposite is true. Mammals have a one-piece jawbone and three bones in the ear. All these bones fossilize readily, yet there is not a single fossil species with two bones in the ear or with two or three bones in the jaw.� Nor does the article you, Jackelantern, quoted above mention anything how the corti organ could have developed in mammals.

I read previously that:
“Probainognathus and Diarthrognathus have a double jaw-joint that neatly bridges the reptiles and mammals. Also, the dentary increasingly took up more of the lower jaw and the teeth became differentiated as reptiles evolved towards the mammalian jaw type. An example of a primitive mammal-like reptile is the Trochosaursus. They have simple back teeth, smaller brain case and shorter dentary compared to Thrinaxodon.�
(Mike Anderson. Is Jesus an Evolutionist? 2011. Smashwords Publishers. Nook e-book. P. 326, 336-349, 383-384, 389 Prior book version: Montane Publishers, South Africa (2008)

The fossils could be demonstrating that various reptiles and/or mammal-like reptiles had different size bones or that some of the bones in their jaws either became larger or smaller. It does not necessarily indicate that the creatures being described were in the process of evolving into mammals. Also, it is not unusual for reptiles to have a double jaw joint. There are snakes in existence today that have double jaw joints (double articulation).


A series of mammal-like reptiles are often listed to illustrate their progression toward mammals (for example, see The Origin & Evolution of Mammals. T. S. Kemp. 2005. Oxford Press. p. 89). The following sequence of mammal-like reptiles is often used by evolutionists to represent this transition: Eothyris, Haptodus, sphenacodontine, Biarmosuchus, gorgonopsian, therocephalian, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, probainognathan, tritylodontid, thitheledontid, morganucodont (morganucodont being
the earliest mammal, similar to a modern shrew). The problem with this arrangement is that the actual sizes of these fossils do not follow in the order of their supposed transitional progression. If their skulls were arranged side-by-side with their actual skull sizes it would be more difficult to see their progression from one to the other. For example, thitheledontid is the smallest fossil, followed by Eothyris, probainognathan, Thrinaxodon and therocephalian, which are approximately all the same size. Procynosuchus, Haptodus, Biarmosuchus, tritylodontid, morganucodont, sphenacodontine and gorgonopsian become progressively larger. Gorgonopsian, although the largest of the series, appears somewhere in the middle of the transitional list. Another problem with this supposed fossil sequence is that the different skeletons supposedly representing a transitional sequence from reptiles to mammals were not found close together geologically. Some supposed ancestors and descendents were found in widely separated layers of sedimentary rock, representing tens of millions of years of
geologic time. (Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A.
Nelson, Ralph Seelke. 2007. Explore Evolution—The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. Pp. 27, 29)

The ending comment in Colbert and Morales, 1991, pp. 228-229 states: “It quite obviously was well on its way towards being the incus bone of the three-bone complex that characterizes the mammalian middle ear� is obviously debatable. It all depends on one’s interpretation of the evidence. I realize that soft tissue does not fossilize very well, however, when one makes the claim that reptiles evolved into mammals, what still needs to be explained is how organs such as the corti organ could have developed in mammals and how a reptilian 3-chambered heart circularity system could have evolved into a mammalian 4-chambered heart circularity system.

The source I listed (Francis Hitching) doesn’t mention the information you quoted and the information you quoted does not address the two issues that are mentioned in the source I quoted. Now do you see why I do not consider just any one source? The hypothesis that reptiles evolved into mammals is not so factual as some proposed.

Yes because your source is utter crap. Literally utter self-invented and dishonest pseudoscience. Well crafted for the ignorant who won't bother actually doing any research. I even had to debunk Sarfati on Earth's Early atmosphere. It's actually disgusting how utterly dishonest Creationism is. Here is something you should do before continuing with me on this subject.. Google the videos "Why do Creationists Get Laughed At" .. And you will see 90 percent of the crap you find on creation.com get debunked by real science.

This seems to contradict what one would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor.

Thanks for the tip, TheJackelantern. I rarely use creation.com, although I do consider some of the claims made by them, I do not accept any one source as being totally factual. I use multiple sources during my research, many of which are of evolutionists as well as creationist material. I read everything I can obtain on a particular topic, regardless of whether it was written from a creationist perspective or from an evolutionary one. For me, this is healthy, for it causes me to think about the claims being made by evolutionists as well as those made by creationists. Everyone needs to be accountable for his or her claims. If a topic is not so matter-of-fact, then it is open to discussion and debate. Since I do not trust any particular source, I need to compare the claims and arrive at my own conclusions. If the information I quoted above (Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. 2007. Explore Evolution—The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. Pp. 27, 29) is non-sense, or as you say “crap,� would you care to explain why the quote above, is incorrect?)

I believe the documentation you are referring to above is:
“There is little evidence to support the view that mammals evolved from reptiles. Not only is there a lack of intermediate fossils, but it is hard to see how it could possibly have happened. The main question is, how could mammals evolve their jaw and ear from a reptile jaw? All reptiles have a lower jaw made up of at least four separate bones on each side, and a single bone in each ear. In every known mammal, either alive or extinct, the opposite is true. Mammals have a one-piece jawbone and three bones in the ear. All these bones fossilize readily, yet there is not a single fossil species with two bones in the ear or with two or three bones in the jaw.� (Francis Hitching. 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe. Pan, London & Sydney. In: Dr. Alan Hayward, Physicist. Copyright 1985. Publication Date 2005. Creation and Evolution—Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible. WIPF & Stock Publishers. Eugene, Oregon. Pp. 43)

This information is not from Sarfati or anyone from creation.com. It is information taken from Francis Hitching. 1982. “The Neck of the Giraffe� as quoted in Dr. Alan Hayward’s book, “Creation and Evolution—Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible.�

If the information is inaccurate, would you, TheJackelantern, explain why it is false?

---


Umm no it doesn't... And the dishonesty in this argument is obvious:

However, the similar body structures of some wasps from developmental pathways are entirely different from those of fruit flies, and are also different from other wasps.

Wasps and flies are separate species. Comparing separate species in their current state in such a way, is actually bad science entirely. In fact, the guy that came up with that argument doesn't have any degrees in Biology, or biochemistry. And really tells me that you do not understand how evolution works. Quoting a lawyers thoughts on Homology is hilarious.. So let's correct you because the moron doesn't seem to even know what Homologous is.

Homologous[Etymology 1] traits of organisms are due to sharing a common ancestor, and such traits often have similar embryological origins and development. This is contrasted with analogous traits: similarities between organisms that were not present in the last common ancestor of the taxa being considered but rather evolved separately.

Hence, comparing current separate species with already huge divergent gaps is just utterly moronic. And you quoting a lawyer that doesn't know a damn thing about what he's talking about is pretty bad. You will also find similar definitions in all the textbooks on evolutionary biology. Thus, when two structures are homologous they are, by definition, descended from common ancestral genes and share the same embryological history. If they do not share the same ancestral genes, then they are not homologous for the purposes of classification. Insect wings, for example, are not homologous to the wings of birds.

As it's commonly said in the real science community:

Johnson doesn't know what he's talking about, but why should he? He's not an expert in evolution. He's a lawyer.

And yes, you can find him in those "Why do Creationists Get Laughed At" videos.. Do us favor, don't post crap from people pretending to be scientists, or biologists. You will just embarrass yourself.

My, Critical_Thinker, quote posted on 1/10/2012 regarding Dr. Craig Venter’s experiment: “Synthetic, involves designed from scratch, not copied from a natural genome… the entire organism must be successfully produced from raw materials…

I read the article, “Craig Venter creates synthetic life form�
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... -life-form)
that you suggested. The article does not provide very much detail as to how the experiment was conducted or whether life was developed spontaneously from non-living chemicals or not. From the literature I read previously, Dr. Craig Venter has not developed life from raw non-living material, although what he and his team accomplished was amazing. I discussed my conclusions about Dr. Venter’s work on a separate posting.

On 1/10/2012, I, Critical_Thinker, wrote:
“I have already read much information regarding Dr. Craig Venter’s research and I do not believe that he created life in the laboratory, as some claim: “[Dr. Craig Venter and his team] have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment…�
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... form/print

Although I do believe Dr. Venter’s experiments are a great accomplishment in that he and his team developed new DNA coding, I do not believe that he actually created life in the laboratory, nor do I believe that he actually claims that he had, although… “During a press conference, Dr. Venter stated, ‘the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.’� (http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress ... life-form/)

In a critical analysis of Dr. Venter’s experiment is was stated: “Dr. Venter borrowed an already functional machinery, he used existing information from another cell to modify it, then synthesizing DNA with this information, joined the molecule despite having chemical and physical difficulties which required yeast to help. The research, though a great scientific feat unto itself, is not a man-made genome that is technically artificial. Synthetic, involves designed from scratch, not copied from a natural genome… the entire organism must be successfully produced from raw materials… What he has done in genetic terms would be analogous to taking an Apple Mac programme and making it work on a PC — and then saying you have created a computer. It’s not trivial, but it is utterly absurd the claims that are being made about it.
http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress ... life-form/

Previously, I read the articles:
“Craig Venter creates synthetic life form�
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.abstract
and
“Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome�
(http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.full)
that describe how the Dr. Venter developed DNA in a laboratory and placed it in an already existing cell.

Yep

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... -life-form

And for the creationists, synthetic life also means a living organism not naturally occurring. Hence we can ask for you to please point to me where synthesized life is existing naturally outside the lab. They are also on the verge of creating non-organic living organisms here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091625.htm
http://www.science20.com/curious_cub/in ... life-82707

Fun stuff..

You, Jackelantern, are correct in stating that organisms consist of atoms, however, what you fail to explain is how DNA with information could have developed from non-intelligence.

Electromagnetism. You do understand that life is an electromagnetic phenomenon right? How much of my original post did you actually bother to read? BTW, in biology, physics ect..., Energy =/= information = force = cause.. Learning what the four stages of matter are, what the periodic table is, the difference in atoms are, and how that relates to biochemistry and the chemical diversity of our Planet might just be a good starting point for you. Your argument is as bad as asking me to explain how snowflakes form complex structures from non-intelligence. Yeah, water being made of atoms to should be too dumb to make complex snowflakes right?

How is nylon-eating bacteria proof of evolution? I agree that organisms
sometimes change to adapt to their environment

The article “Scientists Take First Step Towards Creating 'Inorganic Life'�
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091625.htm) that you, Jackelantern, suggested was very interesting, and although the research is very impressive, it is still a long way from developing a plausible scenario about how the first cell could have originated in nature by natural chemicals in an early Earth.

I read the article you, Jackelantern, suggested “What is Life?� (http://www.science20.com/curious_cub/in ... life-82707) and although the article was very interesting, it does not describe how life could have originated by nature from raw materials. I believe that it is just a matter of time until researchers develop more substantial theories about how life originated than the theories that currently exist, however, I will continue to believe that it is impossible for life to have originated by raw materials in a natural environment on this planet. A cell and DNA are too complicated to have developed gradually, even over eons of time by natural means. Even the simplest cell appears to be too complicated to have originated by natural means with existing raw chemicals. I would assume that you do not believe in spontaneous generation. I believe this theory was disproved many years ago.

“… the chemical interactions between the DNA letters cannot explain their order. In fact, the letters are not even chemically combined with each other; rather, they form rungs of a ladder comprising deoxyribose and phosphate.�
(http://creation.com/synthetic-life-by-venter by Jonathan Sarfati)

I realize you, TheJackelantern, despise anything that comes from creation.com or Jonathan Sarfati, however, I would appreciate your explaining why the above quotation is wrong if you disagree with it.

For naturalistic evolution to occur, a self-replicating organism needs to exist, however, no
such organism is possible until there is the information necessary in the DNA. Some small viruses use RNA as their genetic material. RNA molecules are simpler than DNA, and they can also store information and even replicate. Just to cite a couple of problems with replication having begun by RNA, the RNA molecule would need information to function, just as DNA would, which goes right back to the same problem of where the information came from. Also, for a single strand of RNA to replicate, there must be an identical RNA molecule close by. DNA in life organisms is not merely a repetitive sequence. To convey information, irregularity in sequencing is needed. This irregular sequencing is what is used to convey information and what needs to be explained in DNA. The four letters of its alphabet are highly irregular while at the same time conforming to a functional requirement, that is, the correct arrangement of amino acids to create a working protein. If there were only repeating characters in DNA, the assembly instructions would merely tell amino acids to assemble in the same way over and over again. The DNA wouldn’t be able to build all the many different protein molecules that are needed for a living cell to function. (Strobel, L. 2004. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids (MI): Zondervan. Pp. 285-292)

The same goes for the above comments. I would appreciate your explaining why the above quotation is wrong if you disagree with it.


I, Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/13/2012:
Regardless of which scenario is used, warm small pond, deep sea vents, etc., they all use water in one form or another. Water is one of the agents that damages DNA. If DNA somehow evolved on the Earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced. If it were not for DNA repair genes, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell. How then could DNA survive when subjected to attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth? Starting in water is also a problem since water tends to break the bonds of some amino acids and prevents them from forming chains.

I am sure you are aware that there are left-handed and right-handed amino acids (called handedness or chirality) in nature, however, only left-handed amino acids are used in living things. When amino acids are left to form on their own, both left-handed as well as right-handed amino acids form. When both left-handed and right-handed amino acids are together, no chain of amino acids would form. How do you suppose organisms could have originated with only left-handed amino acids? How could the left-handed amino acids have been separated from right-handed amino acids in nature while the cell was developing?

The problem of chirality is that in our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. It is a well accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal chance to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer.

When amino acids are synthesized in the laboratory, there is always a 50% mixture of the two forms. Just one long or right-handed amino acid inserted into a chain of short, left-handed amino acids would prevent the coiling and folding necessary for proper protein function.

It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. There is also chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are compounds of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the “L� or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the “R� or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the “R� or right-handed optical isomer. The “L� isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality. If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what is seen in natural proteins or in natural DNA.

A random chance natural process cannot create proteins with thousands of “L� molecules and DNA with billions of “R� molecules. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality (handedness). It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be destroyed. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the “R� configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, it is much less likely for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, with all of them being formed with the same chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job and DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this Earth. (http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html)

^^^ End of portions of comments I posted on 1/13/2012 ^^^


[

quote]Neither the prion discussions nor the co-evolutions document even hinted about origins.

Origins is what you are made of. Life is an electromagnetic phenomenon. And no, science will never claim how exactly life began because there is no way to rewind the tape and see the exact process take place.

You didn't read my prion example did you? And btw, prions were shown to evolve outside the body in a lab to adapt to conditions outside of the body. The purpose is to show evolutionary processes taking place. And it demonstrates exactly that.

The article, “Green Sea Slug Is Part Animal, Part� from Wired Science, you, Jackelantern, suggested does not discuss origins at all.

Nope, it was discussing Evolution and not abiogenesis.. You do know the difference right? Of course you do, Im sure you've had this discussion 100 times over while pretending to not know or understand the differences.

TheJackelantern, I am not pretending anything. Evolution is a change in a species. Abiogenesis is the concept of how life could have originated by natural means. Yes, I did ready the articles on prions, however, I was not able to understand how prions relate to how life may have originated on this planet. So, please explain how prions are related to theories regarding the origins of life. The bottom line is that to date there exists no plausible theory that conclusively demonstrates how life could have begun on this planet.
^^^ end Critical_Thinker 1/17/2012 ^^^^

[Critical_Thinker]

Critical_Thinker:

Think about this. For 100 years after Darwin proposed his groundbreaking theory, the smartest people in the world tried to knock it down. They proposed every possible objection, and over time, each and every objection was refuted. Finally, Biology realized that the riddle of the origin of species had been solved, accepted the theory, and based modern Biology on it.

My 01-17-2012 reply:
Hi Autodidact. It is true that shortly after Darwin proposed his theory of “descent with modifications� many tried to disprove it. As far as I know, some of the parts were indeed knocked –down (refuted). For example, in Darwin’s day people thought that offspring inherited genes from both parents and that there was a blending of the traits.

To counter Darwin’s hypothesis regarding blending of traits from both parents, it was argued that if there were a blending of traits the chances of traits being passed down to a creature’s offspring would be greatly diminished. Fleeming Jenkin (1833-1885) developed a serious objection concerning Darwin’s view of heredity. Although Darwin accepted the doctrine of the heritability of acquired characteristics, he [Darwin] believed that the characteristics of offspring were a blend of corresponding characteristics of their parents. Jenkins argued, such a mechanism of heredity would collapse natural selection. Variations first emerged in a single organism. When that organism mated with a normal member of its species, the variation inherited by the first generation of offspring would be diluted by half, by half again in the next generation and so forth. In summary, any favorable variation, instead of being selected, would be diluted down to essentially nothing.

That is why I believe to a certain extent that Darwin adapted Lamarck’s belief that traits that developed in a creature, such as a giraffe’s neck getting longer by stretching it, the trait would be passed on to the giraffe’s offspring. Darwin adopted this view that if parent giraffe strained their necks to reach the top leaves, then the offspring would inherit longer necks. In Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:
“We here see that there is no need to separate single pairs, as man does [in artificial breeding], when he methodically improves a breed: natural selection will preserve and thus separate all the superior individuals, allowing them freely to intercross [interbreed], and will destroy all the inferior individuals. By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined, no doubt, in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased
use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.� [Emphasis mine] – (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter 7)

Today, we know that blending of traits is not true, as, August Weismann (1834-1914) demonstrated in the 1880s that neither “use and disuse of organs� nor “characteristics acquired during an organism’s life� had any effect on heredity at all. The mechanism for evolution was changed during the 1920’s (and later) to the view that mutations are the mechanism whereby changes occur in a plant or a creature, hence neo-Darwinism.

Since Charles Darwin’s theory was based mainly on natural selection (except for his “the inherited effects of the increased use of parts� hypothesis that he borrowed from Lamarck which was soon disproved by Fleeming Jenkin), there was little to disprove. Natural selection does select those plants and animals that have the more adaptive traits for their environment. Natural selection does not increase traits, but eliminates more undesirable traits by not allowing those creatures with the less desirable traits to continue and generate offspring.

Sources:
Del Ratzsch. 1996. The Battle of Beginnings – Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. InterVarsity Press. P. O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515.
Pp.14-36
Young, Matt and Strode, Paul K. 2009. Why Evolution Works (And Creationism Fails). Rutgers Press, 100 Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8099. Pp.21, 60, 82, 105
Rhodes, Ron. 2004. The Ten Things You Should Know About the Creation Vs. Evolution Debate. Harvest House Publishers. p.9

Darwin never provided sufficient evidence to establish his theory of evolution. Neither speciation nor even the most trivial type of evolution had ever actually been observed directly in nature. Darwin provided no direct evidence that natural selection had ever caused any biological change in nature. The idea of evolution on a grand scale was entirely speculative and Darwin was quite unable to demonstrate the “infinitude of connecting links�, the existence of which he repeatedly admitted was crucial to his theory. In spite of the weakness of evidence, Darwin’s theory was elevated from what was in reality a highly speculative hypothesis into an unchallenged established belief in the time frame of little more than twenty years after the publication of Origin of Species in 1859.

Prior to 1859 it was common for one to view the organic world as a result of creative interventions. However, the decades following 1859, the common view resulted in a total change of interpreting nature as being originated by a creator to one having a naturalistic origin. After 1859 it became intellectually respectable to view life as the natural product of purely natural processes operating over long periods of time. The most significant factor that contributed to the success of Darwinian Theory after 1859 was the fact that it was the first genuine attempt to bring the study of life on Earth fully into the conceptual field of science.

Changing one’s interpretation of something is not, however, the same as establishing a new fact. The facts were the same in 1850 as they were in 1870, only the perception of them had changed. The facts themselves were not sufficient to compel one to believe in the concept of Darwinian evolution or to establish beyond reasonable doubt that life on earth was generated by simple random processes that were supposedly responsible for even microevolution that was presumed in the late 1800s.

During the years following the publication of Origins of Species in 1859, evolution became more and more an established belief, the ideology of evolution became part of every facet of biology. The concept of origins being contributed to special acts of creation were set aside as being religious views rather than scientific ones. As a result, there was very little scientific opposition to the Darwinian concept of evolution and the continuity of species. Therefore, debate greatly diminished and there was less need to justify the idea of evolution by facts or evidence. Once a theory has been elevated into a self-evident truth, its defense becomes irrelevant and there is no longer any point in having to establish its validity by reference to empirical facts.
Source:
Michael Denton. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler & Adler. 4550 Montgomery Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Pp. 69-80

Do you really think you're going to come up with some fatal flaw at this point? Biology uses it because it works. That's the fact; it works. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be a foundational theory of modern Biology. Within Biology, there is no longer any controversy about this theory; the issue is settled. The only controversy as this point is between Biology, which is to say science, and anti-science. If the scientific method works, then the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is correct, because it has been tested according to that method and found to be correct. The people who are arguing against ToE are arguing against using science as a way to learn about the world, in favor of magic and superstition.

Are you one of those people?

My reply 01-17-2012:
I do not propose to have found any new flaws in Darwin’s theory of evolution. There have been multiple arguments against Darwin’s theory ever since it was first presented back in 1859. You, like many others, seem to ignore many of the objections raised. Many of the objections I raised on this web site have not been refuted adequately. I could provide some examples but I would rather suggest re-reading some of my comments and questions I raised and ask yourself whether you or any other evolutionist has really adequately refuted any of the arguments I presented. I beg to differ that evolution has been tested and found to be correct. Much of the evidence is circumstantial. The evidence proposed by evolutionists is open to interpretation, and therefore, is open to debate. I have also previously explained what evidence I would accept to prove the theory.

There is basically insufficient evidence to say conclusively that the theory of evolution has been tested and found to be correct. There still remains many gaps in the theory have yet to be explained. In your mind there is sufficient evidence, even overwhelming, however, to me it is not conclusive.
^^^ end Critical_Thinker 1/17/2012 post ^^^

[Autodidact]

Critical_Thinker:

Think about this. For 100 years after Darwin proposed his groundbreaking theory, the smartest people in the world tried to knock it down. They proposed every possible objection, and over time, each and every objection was refuted. Finally, Biology realized that the riddle of the origin of species had been solved, accepted the theory, and based modern Biology on it.

My 01-17-2012 reply:
Hi Autodidact. It is true that shortly after Darwin proposed his theory of “descent with modifications� many tried to disprove it. As far as I know, some of the parts were indeed knocked –down (refuted). For example, in Darwin’s day people thought that offspring inherited genes from both parents and that there was a blending of the traits.

To counter Darwin’s hypothesis regarding blending of traits from both parents, it was argued that if there were a blending of traits the chances of traits being passed down to a creature’s offspring would be greatly diminished. Fleeming Jenkin (1833-1885) developed a serious objection concerning Darwin’s view of heredity. Although Darwin accepted the doctrine of the heritability of acquired characteristics, he [Darwin] believed that the characteristics of offspring were a blend of corresponding characteristics of their parents. Jenkins argued, such a mechanism of heredity would collapse natural selection. Variations first emerged in a single organism. When that organism mated with a normal member of its species, the variation inherited by the first generation of offspring would be diluted by half, by half again in the next generation and so forth. In summary, any favorable variation, instead of being selected, would be diluted down to essentially nothing.

That is why I believe to a certain extent that Darwin adapted Lamarck’s belief that traits that developed in a creature, such as a giraffe’s neck getting longer by stretching it, the trait would be passed on to the giraffe’s offspring. Darwin adopted this view that if parent giraffe strained their necks to reach the top leaves, then the offspring would inherit longer necks. In Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:
“We here see that there is no need to separate single pairs, as man does [in artificial breeding], when he methodically improves a breed: natural selection will preserve and thus separate all the superior individuals, allowing them freely to intercross [interbreed], and will destroy all the inferior individuals. By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined, no doubt, in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased
use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.� [Emphasis mine] – (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter 7)

Today, we know that blending of traits is not true, as, August Weismann (1834-1914) demonstrated in the 1880s that neither “use and disuse of organs� nor “characteristics acquired during an organism’s life� had any effect on heredity at all. The mechanism for evolution was changed during the 1920’s (and later) to the view that mutations are the mechanism whereby changes occur in a plant or a creature, hence neo-Darwinism.

Since Charles Darwin’s theory was based mainly on natural selection (except for his “the inherited effects of the increased use of parts� hypothesis that he borrowed from Lamarck which was soon disproved by Fleeming Jenkin), there was little to disprove. Natural selection does select those plants and animals that have the more adaptive traits for their environment. Natural selection does not increase traits, but eliminates more undesirable traits by not allowing those creatures with the less desirable traits to continue and generate offspring.

Sources:
Del Ratzsch. 1996. The Battle of Beginnings – Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. InterVarsity Press. P. O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515.
Pp.14-36
Young, Matt and Strode, Paul K. 2009. Why Evolution Works (And Creationism Fails). Rutgers Press, 100 Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8099. Pp.21, 60, 82, 105
Rhodes, Ron. 2004. The Ten Things You Should Know About the Creation Vs. Evolution Debate. Harvest House Publishers. p.9

Your understanding of the history of science and ToE is mistaken. Darwinian evolution is the alternative to Lamarkism; it rejects and refutes Lamarkism.

Natural selection does not increase traits; it selects them. Hence the name. Mutations increase traits; natural selection selects them. Two parts. Not one, two: descent with modification plus natural selection. That is ToE in a nutshell.

Darwin never provided sufficient evidence to establish his theory of evolution.

Correct. It was all the evidence collected for a century after Darwin that supported it and caused it to be accepted.

Neither speciation nor even the most trivial type of evolution had ever actually been observed directly in nature

. You are wrong, they have, and I can provide examples. I predict that the fact that you are mistaken will not alter your views.

Darwin provided no direct evidence that natural selection had ever caused any biological change in nature.

Because it doesn't. It's descent with modification plus natural selection. Two parts. Two. Not one.

The idea of evolution on a grand scale was entirely speculative and Darwin was quite unable to demonstrate the “infinitude of connecting links�, the existence of which he repeatedly admitted was crucial to his theory.

You're wrong.

In spite of the weakness of evidence, Darwin’s theory was elevated from what was in reality a highly speculative hypothesis into an unchallenged established belief in the time frame of little more than twenty years after the publication of Origin of Species in 1859.

So what you're saying is that all Biologists are idiots or liars, and have accepted as foundational theory without supporting evidence? Is that what you really think?

Prior to 1859 it was common for one to view the organic world as a result of creative interventions. However, the decades following 1859, the common view resulted in a total change of interpreting nature as being originated by a creator to one having a naturalistic origin. After 1859 it became intellectually respectable to view life as the natural product of purely natural processes operating over long periods of time. The most significant factor that contributed to the success of Darwinian Theory after 1859 was the fact that it was the first genuine attempt to bring the study of life on Earth fully into the conceptual field of science.

And that other little thing you keep forgetting--evidence.

Changing one’s interpretation of something is not, however, the same as establishing a new fact. The facts were the same in 1850 as they were in 1870, only the perception of them had changed. The facts themselves were not sufficient to compel one to believe in the concept of Darwinian evolution or to establish beyond reasonable doubt that life on earth was generated by simple random processes that were supposedly responsible for even microevolution that was presumed in the late 1800s.

The facts have never changed. What changed was that we learned what the facts meant. And that takes a genius, one of the greatest geniuses in the history of science--Charles Darwin.

Do you honestly still not understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? It's obvious confusion like this that makes me wonder whether the poster is dishonest or ignorant. Which is it? It's a simple, important distinction. Do you need me to explain it? Evolution is not about random processes; it's the opposite.

Do you need me to explain exactly what ToE says? Because it's not what you're saying at all. Do you not understand the basics? If you do, why are you distorting them?

During the years following the publication of Origins of Species in 1859, evolution became more and more an established belief, the ideology of evolution became part of every facet of biology. The concept of origins being contributed to special acts of creation were set aside as being religious views rather than scientific ones. As a result, there was very little scientific opposition to the Darwinian concept of evolution and the continuity of species. Therefore, debate greatly diminished and there was less need to justify the idea of evolution by facts or evidence. Once a theory has been elevated into a self-evident truth, its defense becomes irrelevant and there is no longer any point in having to establish its validity by reference to empirical facts.

Evolution is not an ideology; it's a scientific theory. If you don't get something as basic as that, it's hard to have a reasonable conversation with you. In fact there was massive opposition, possibly some of the greatest in the history of science. ToE overcame it for one reason: evidence. The evidence demonstrated conclusively that it is correct, and that is why Biology accepted it.

You don't even seem to understand that science is not about God, and does not deny God. Have you been reading creationists? That could explain your confusion about these basics.
Source:

Michael Denton. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler & Adler. 4550 Montgomery Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Pp. 69-80

Evolution was not a theory in crisis in 1985 and is not now. Michael Denton is a liar. Evolution is firmly accepted, the consensus, mainstream, foundational theory of modern Biology. Why do you think that is?

Do you really think you're going to come up with some fatal flaw at this point? Biology uses it because it works. That's the fact; it works. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be a foundational theory of modern Biology. Within Biology, there is no longer any controversy about this theory; the issue is settled. The only controversy as this point is between Biology, which is to say science, and anti-science. If the scientific method works, then the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is correct, because it has been tested according to that method and found to be correct. The people who are arguing against ToE are arguing against using science as a way to learn about the world, in favor of magic and superstition.

Are you one of those people?

My reply 01-17-2012:
I do not propose to have found any new flaws in Darwin’s theory of evolution. There have been multiple arguments against Darwin’s theory ever since it was first presented back in 1859

. Yes, but they've all been disproved.

You, like many others, seem to ignore many of the objections raised

. I don't ignore them, they've all been refuted decades ago.

Many of the objections I raised on this web site have not been refuted adequately.

You're wrong. You don't even understand what ToE is.

I could provide some examples but I would rather suggest re-reading some of my comments and questions I raised and ask yourself whether you or any other evolutionist has really adequately refuted any of the arguments I presented. I beg to differ that evolution has been tested and found to be correct.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Much of the evidence is circumstantial.

Yes, scientific evidence usually is.

The evidence proposed by evolutionists is open to interpretation, and therefore, is open to debate. I have also previously explained what evidence I would accept to prove the theory.

Evidence is not open to interpretation. Interpretation doesn't come into it. It's simple, this is how science works: You use the hypothesis to make predictions. If the predictions come true, the hypothesis is supported. That's it. ToE has made literally millions of predictions, and all of them have been confirmed. ALL OF THEM. I can list them for you, if you like. That is why it has been accepted.

Who do you think is in a better position to evaluate that evidence, Biologists, or the rest of us?

There is basically insufficient evidence to say conclusively that the theory of evolution has been tested and found to be correct. There still remains many gaps in the theory have yet to be explained. In your mind there is sufficient evidence, even overwhelming, however, to me it is not conclusive.
^^^ end Critical_Thinker 1/17/2012 post ^^^

Not my mind, Critical, all of modern Biology.

Go to your nearest university's website. Visit the Biology department. What do you see? Classes like Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. I guarantee you that Biology department uses and bases its entire program on ToE. I repeat within Biology, which is the only place that matters, there is no controversy about this theory. None. Zip. Zilch.

[TheJackelantern]

Thanks for the tip, TheJackelantern. I rarely use creation.com, although I do consider some of the claims made by them, I do not accept any one source as being totally factual. I use multiple sources during my research, many of which are of evolutionists as well as creationist material.

You're welcome.. And here is another tip, try finding creationist peer reviewed journals.. You will note that they don't have any, or any that actually could be used against evolution.. And btw, all creationist sites use the same source material and arguments for the most part. Their material is trash, and thus not really worth my time considering their positions have been debunked thousands of times over. If you can find me actual scientific peer reviewed journals, that would be great. So do me a favor, don't bother copy pasting stuff off a creationist website, I won't even bother addressing it.

What is with this “god of the gaps arguments� stuff? Apparently, you have problems with it. I may be ignorant, that is why I am asking questions.

There is a difference between asking questions, and copy pasting creationist material directly from their websites. You do realize where this goes here on this forum right? .. So I will just state a simple fact that invalidates their whole concept:

Consciousness can't exist without cause.

That's all I need to do there since the emergence of a conscious state is bound to evolutionary processes. So that part of the argument is over.. So lets move along:

I do not really need your brass comments.

I only get this way when I see dishonest arguments being posted, or copy pasted pseudoscience from a creationist website, or blog site that has nothing but dogmatic arguments that misrepresent science with quote mining, pseudoscience, no published journals, intentional lying, and the distribution of misinformation to what they know is an ignorant audience.. It's why they appeal to ignorance, emotion, dogma, and their religion.. Difference between me and them, I actually care what is actually true, and what isn't.

I believe that you are so upset by my comments

I'm not upset with your comments. I am simply annoyed by the contents of them to which contain a lot of pseudoscience and copy pasted creationist talking points that are pretty much worthless. They are Pratts.., and people are sick of having to debunk them a billion times over.. :/

Hence, how much time have you spent actually reading actual science journals? Primary literature and not some blog site?

Just because I have questions that you are not able to adequately answer, does indicate that I believe in the “god of the gaps.� It only indicates that you have no scientific answers.

Which question was that? I adequately answered your questions.. In fact, electromagnetism adequately answers all your questions on this subject if you want to get technical.. And the questions you really are looking for do not deal with evolution, they deal with abiogenesis. Evolution is an already proven fact. But I am not going to spend 6 years here to educate you on the subjects of biochemistry, electromagnetism, physics, Chaotic systems with feedback, complex adaptive systems, self-organization systems, emergence, or the differences in atoms and what that has to do with chemical and biological diversity.. I suggest you actually spend a lot of time reading actual science journals rather than the stuff you have been reading. God of the Gaps in a theory where there is little to no gaps at all is a pretty bad argument... Especially when you are arguing from a position that is one giant gap with no evidence to support it.

If evolutionists claim that life evolved from non-living chemicals (which they do), I would expect this claim to be supported by evidence or at least some acceptable scientific explanation of how it could have occurred.

Electromagnetism, and the periodic table.. Also look up complex adaptive systems, emergence, the secret life of chaos, self-organization.. You can begin there. Look up videos, and search out actual published science journals. There is so much information out there that it would literally take you years to digest just a fraction of what's out there on the subject.

ou, Jackelanern, believe that science is getting closer and closer to the answers. All that I have read so far is that science is learning more about how things are related, for example, how cells function. But to date I have still not obtained any convincing evidence as to how life may have begun by natural means.

Again life is an electromagnetic phenomenon. If you want to learn about abiogenesis, there is a lot we do know, and some things we don't know.. Regardless, it's electromagnetism. For example, here is a good source:

http://www.pnas.org/content/current#BiologicalSciences

Examples:

Huimin Chen,
Steve P. Meisburger,
Suzette A. Pabit,
Julie L. Sutton,
Watt W. Webb,
and Lois Pollack

Ionic strength-dependent persistence lengths of single-stranded RNA and DNA
PNAS 2012 109 (3) 799-804; published ahead of print December 27, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1119057109

-

Colloquium Paper: Phylogenomic evidence of adaptive evolution in the ancestry of humans PNAS 2010 107 (Supplement 2) 8918-8923; published ahead of print May 5, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0914626107
...Phylogenomic evidence of adaptive evolution in the ancestry of humans 10.1073...proposed the tree model for life's evolution. In this model, natural selection...Academy of Sciences, "In the Light of Evolution IV: The Human Condition," held...

-

Colloquium Paper: Uniquely human evolution of sialic acid genetics and biology PNAS 2010 107 (Supplement 2) 8939-8946; published ahead of print May 5, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0914634107
...physiological changes in human evolution, with implications for uniquely...health and disease. Uniquely human evolution of sialic acid genetics and biology...0914634107 Ajit Varki The theory of evolution via descent by natural selection...

-

Biological Sciences - Evolution

John A. Finarelli and
John J. Flynn

Brain-size evolution and sociality in Carnivora PNAS 2009 106 (23) 9345-9349; published ahead of print May 27, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0901780106
...a repeated theme in vertebrate evolution. Here we present an extensive sampling...Amphicyonidae behavior biologic evolution brain Canidae Caniformia Carnivora...1073/pnas.0901780106 Brain-size evolution and sociality in Carnivora Finarelli...

-

Biological Sciences - Genetics

Pablo Tamayo,
Donna Slonim,
Jill Mesirov,
Qing Zhu,
Sutisak Kitareewan,
Ethan Dmitrovsky,
Eric S. Lander,
and Todd R. Golub

Interpreting patterns of gene expression with self-organizing maps: Methods and application to hematopoietic differentiation PNAS 1999 96 (6) 2907-2912; doi:10.1073/pnas.96.6.2907
...patterns of gene expression with self-organizing maps: Methods and application...describes the application of self-organizing maps, a type of mathematical...clustering, k-means clustering, and self-organizing maps (SOMs). Bayesian clustering is...

-

Biological Sciences - Cell Biology

Kit Wong,
Olivier Pertz,
Klaus Hahn,
and Henry Bourne

Neutrophil polarization: Spatiotemporal dynamics of RhoA activity support a self-organizing mechanism PNAS 2006 103 (10) 3639-3644; published ahead of print February 28, 2006, doi:10.1073/pnas.0600092103
...dynamics of RhoA activity support a self-organizing mechanism Cell polarity regulates...absence of spatial cues is a self-organizing process in which distinct frontness...dynamics of RhoA activity support a self-organizing mechanism. | Chemoattractants...

-

iological Sciences - Biochemistry

Leslie E. Orgel

Self-organizing biochemical cycles PNAS 2000 97 (23) 12503-12507; published ahead of print October 31, 2000, doi:10.1073/pnas.220406697
Self-organizing biochemical cycles 10.1073/pnas.220406697...on the likelihood of complex cycles self-organizing without the help of evolved catalysts...pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.220406697 Self-organizing biochemical cycles. | I examine the...

-

Physical Sciences - Chemistry - Supramolecular Chemistry and Self-Assembly Special Feature

Makoto Tadokoro,
Hideaki Kanno,
Tadanori Kitajima,
Hiromi Shimada-Umemoto,
Noritaka Nakanishi,
Kiyoshi Isobe,
and Kazuhiro Nakasuji

Supramolecular Chemistry And Self-assembly Special Feature: Self-organizing super-structures formed from hydrogen-bonded biimidazolate metal complexes PNAS 2002 99 (8) 4950-4955; published ahead of print April 2, 2002, doi:10.1073/pnas.072661699
Self-organizing super-structures formed from hydrogen-bonded...Scheme S1. In this report, four types of self-organizing superstructures with infinite chains...Supporting Information Supporting Information Self-organizing super-structures formed from hydrogen-bonded...

--

iological Sciences - Ecology - Social Sciences - Anthropology

Doyle McKey,
Stéphen Rostain,
José Iriarte,
Bruno Glaser,
Jago Jonathan Birk,
Irene Holst,
and Delphine Renard

Pre-Columbian agricultural landscapes, ecosystem engineers, and self-organized patchiness in Amazonia PNAS 2010 107 (17) 7823-7828; published ahead of print April 12, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0908925107
...flooded matrix set in motion self-organizing processes driven by ecosystem...in forested Amazonia, these self-organizing ecosystems illustrate the ecological...flooded matrix set in motion self-organizing processes driven by ecosystem...

--

Physical Sciences - Chemistry

Mattias Karlsson,
Kristin Sott,
Maximillian Davidson,
Ann-Sofie Cans,
Pontus Linderholm,
Daniel Chiu,
and Owe Orwar

Formation of geometrically complex lipid nanotube-vesicle networks of higher-order topologies PNAS 2002 99 (18) 11573-11578; published ahead of print August 16, 2002, doi:10.1073/pnas.172183699
...3 topology. Within networks, self-organizing branching nanotube architectures...we have demonstrated how the self-organizing feature of lipid membranes can...3 topology. Within networks, self-organizing branching nanotube architectures...

--

ORIGINS OF LIFE:

Biological Sciences - Biochemistry

Robert Shapiro

Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life PNAS 1999 96 (8) 4396-4401; doi:10.1073/pnas.96.8.4396
...27 Miller S L Orgel L E ( 1974 ) The Origins of Life on the Earth ( Prentice Hall , Englewood...3226718 . 70 Woese C ( 1980 ) in The Origins of Life and Evolution , eds Halvorson H O Van...Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life ( Cambridge Univ. Press , New York...

-

Physical Sciences - Chemistry - Special Feature

Stephen J. Sowerby,
Corey A. Cohn,
Wolfgang M. Heckl,
and Nils G. Holm

Special Feature: From the Cover: Differential adsorption of nucleic acid bases: Relevance to the origin of life PNAS 2001 98 (3) 820-822; doi:10.1073/pnas.98.3.820
...919 . 23 Winter D Zubay G ( 1995 ) Origins Life Evol Biosphere 25 : 61 - 81 , 11536682...adsorpstation , version 1.0 ( Department of Thermodynamics and Thermal Separation...3422484 . 35 Shapiro R ( 1995 ) Origins Life Evol Biosphere 25 : 83 - 98 , 11536683...

-

Physical Sciences: Geology

Steven M. Stanley

An Ecological Theory for the Sudden Origin of Multicellular Life in the Late Precambrian PNAS 1973 70 (5) 1486-1489
...Fischer, A. G. (1965) "Fossils, early life, and atmospheric history," Proc. Nat...Geology: Stanley Late Precambrian Origin of Multicellular Life 1489 3. Schopf, J. W., Haugh, B. N., Molnar...waite, D. F. (1973) "On the development of metaphytes and metazoans," J. Paleontol...1968) "Pre-metazoan evolution and the origins of the Metazoa," in Evolution and Environment...

--

Physical Sciences - Chemistry

Shin Miyakawa,
Hiroto Yamanashi,
Kensei Kobayashi,
H. James Cleaves,
and Stanley L. Miller

Prebiotic synthesis from CO atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life PNAS 2002 99 (23) 14628-14631; published ahead of print October 30, 2002, doi:10.1073/pnas.192568299
...atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life 10.1073/pnas.192568299 Shin...Orgel, L. E., ( 1974 ) The Origins of Life on the Earth (Prentice-Hall...1998 ) in The Molecular Origins of Life , ed. Brack, A. (Cambridge...

-

Biological Sciences - Biochemistry

Matthew Levy and
Stanley L. Miller

The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life PNAS 1998 95 (14) 7933-7938
...59-69. 15 Shock E L ( 1990 ) Origins Life Evol Biosphere 20 : 331 - 367 . 16 Holm N G ( 1992 ) Origins Life Evol Biosphere 22 : 5 - 14 . 17 Shock E L ( 1996 ) in Evolution of Hydrothermal Ecosystems on Earth (and...48 Miller S L Orgel L E ( 1974 ) The Origins of Life on Earth ( Prentice Hall , Englewood...

-

Research Article

D M Raup and
J W Valentine

Multiple origins of life PNAS 1983 80 (10) 2981-2984
Multiple origins of life D M Raup J W Valentine There is...conditions. If there were multiple origins of life, the result could have been a polyphyletic...given as many as 10 independent origins of life, the odds are that all but one...

-

Physical Sciences: Chemistry

Zofia Borowska and
David Mauzerall

Photoreduction of carbon dioxide by aqueous ferrous ion: An alternative to the strongly reducing atmosphere for the chemical origin of life PNAS 1988 85 (18) 6577-6580
...biol. 39, 397-405. 7. Stribling, R. & Miller, S. L. (1987) Origins Life 17, 261-273. 8. Walker, J. C. G. (1985) Origins Life 16, 117-127. 9. Holland, H. D. (1984) The Chemical Evolution of the Atmo- sphere and Oceans (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton...

--

Commentary

Eugene V. Koonin

An RNA-making reactor for the origin of life PNAS 2007 104 (22) 9105-9106; published ahead of print May 22, 2007, doi:10.1073/pnas.0702699104
...An RNA-making reactor for the origin of life. | National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health...chemical reactions hydrothermal vents life origin ocean floors RNA GeoRef, Copyright...

-

Geophysics

Harold C. Urey

On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life PNAS 1952 38 (4) 351-363
...Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life. | Institute for Nuclear Studies, University...chemical history of the earth and the origin of life Urey Harold Clayton Author 351 363 PNASA6...

-

Biological Sciences - Evolution

Vera Vasas,
Eörs Szathmáry,
and Mauro Santos

Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks constraints metabolism-first scenarios for the origin of life PNAS 2010 107 (4) 1470-1475; doi:10.1073/pnas.0912628107
...2000 ) An inherited efficiencies model of non-genomic evolution . Simul Pract Theory...replicator was not involved in the origin of life . IUBMB Life 49 : 173 - 176 . 11 Kauffman SA ( 1993 ) The Origins of Order ( Oxford Univ Press , New York...

And there are other resource sites you can check out to which includes Google's scholar search engine. And you can even read this:

Physical Sciences: Chemistry

G. W. Hodgson and
Cyril Ponnamperuma

PREBIOTIC PORPHYRIN GENESIS: PORPHYRINS FROM ELECTRIC DISCHARGE IN METHANE, AMMONIA, AND WATER VAPOR PNAS 1968 59 (1) 22-28
...probable synthesis during chemical evolution," Nature, 202, 1231-1232 (1964). 9 Hodgson, G. W., and B. C. Baker, "Porphyrin abiogenesis from pyrrole and formaldehyde under simulated geochemical conditions," Nature, 216, 29-32 (1967). 10 Krashnovskii, A. A...

Or this soon to be up coming publication:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/scien ... .html?_r=1

Dr. Ratcliff and his adviser, Michael Travisano, are experts in experimental evolution. They design experiments in which microbes can evolve interesting new traits within weeks.

“We were sitting in his office drinking coffee, talking about what would be the coolest thing you could do in the lab,� Dr. Ratcliff said. “O.K., the origin of life would be too hard. But other than the origin of life, what would be the coolest thing?� They decided it would be observing single-celled microbes evolving a primitive form of multicellularity.

The scientists designed an experiment with brewer’s yeast, which normally lives as single cells, feeding on sugar and budding off daughter cells to reproduce.

And I just took from what first came up in a simple search. There are literally thousands and thousands of papers on the subject of evolution ect. It's not even worth my time discussing pratt creationist arguments.

If you want to know more about electromagnetism and life, you can go here:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... =&as_vis=1

The only examples you provided were of plants: (1) Oenothera lamarckiana and Oenothera gigas, (2) Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda and (3) Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda.

Really, am I supposed to post a billion examples? For Pete's sake you are embarrassing yourself here :

I do not believe that plants function the same as animals.

Actually they do... We don't care what you believe, we care what is actually fact. The green sea slug is one prime example of an animal that can photosynthesize light. I even discussed it in the original post in regards to horizontal gene transfers. And you can also note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

And:

Euglena is a genus of unicellular flagellate protists. It is the best known and most widely studied member of the phylum Euglenozoa (also known as Euglenophyta), a diverse group containing some 44 genera and at least 800 species.[1] Species of Euglena are found in fresh and salt waters. They are often abundant in quiet, inland waters, where they may bloom in numbers sufficient to color the surface of ponds and ditches green (E. viridis) or red (E. sanguinea).[1]

The species Euglena gracilis, has been used extensively in the laboratory as a model organism.[2]

Most species of Euglena have photosynthesizing chloroplasts within the body of the cell, which enable them to feed by autotrophy, like plants. However, they can also take nourishment heterotrophically, like animals. Since Euglena have features of both animals and plants, early taxonomists, working within the Linnaean two-kingdom system of biological classification, found them difficult to classify.[3][4] Indeed, it was the question of where to put such "unclassifiable" creatures that prompted Ernst Haeckel to add a third kingdom to the Animale and Vegetabile of Linnaeus: the Kingdom Protista.[5]

Or you can go here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 182508.htm

This in relation to miximorphs:

A mixotroph is a microorganism that can use a mix of different sources of energy and carbon. Possible are alternations between photo- and chemotrophy, between litho- and organotrophy, between auto- and heterotrophy or a combination of it. Mixotrophs can be either eukaryotic or prokaryotic.[1]
They can take advantage of different environmental conditions.[2]

If a trophic mode is obligate, then it is always necessary for sustaining growth and maintenance; if facultative, it can be used as a supplemental source.[1] Some organisms have incomplete Calvin cycles, so they are incapable of fixing carbon dioxide and must use organic carbon sources.

http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/education/Scho2000.pdf

Animals (even the simplest one) are more complicated than plants.

Not at all relevant..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... nimal.html

If you see no distinction, then this point is meaningless to you. Your plant examples are similar to the ruby-red grapefruit example when radiation was applied to it.

Four corner time cube.. Please don't post arguments on subjects you have no understanding of. Especially in terms of radiation vs mutations.

If the experiments utilizing radiation also works on animals, then genes that become mutated that have a positive result would be able to be demonstrated in the laboratory,

Ooh, this is easy:

Wolff S
Laboratory of Radiobiology and Environmental Health University of California, San Francisco 94143-0750.
Chinese Medical Journal [1994, 107(6):425-30]

Type: Journal Article, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Abstract Highlight Terms
Gene Ontology(1) Species(2)
In human and animal cells, an adaptive response has been found to make cells somewhat refractory to the induction of chromosomal damage by high doses applied subsequently. These responses can also be induced in vivo by irradiating animals with low, or chronic doses. In regard to cytogenetic damage, and presumably those mutations that are cytogenetic in origin, the induced response leads to the repair, or rejoining, of broken chromosome ends, which means that chromosome aberrations, deletional (or null) mutations, DNA double-strand breaks, and even cellular survival that is dependent upon the genetic (cytogenetic) integrity of the cell can be endpoints that will show an adaptive response to ionizing radiations.

[Decrease in the radiation effect in the lymphoid organs of animals adapting to altitude].
[Article in Russian]
Makeeva VF, Komolova GS, Egorov IA, Isabaeva VA.
Abstract

Adaptation to altitude hypoxia exerts a positive effect on the cell density of lymph organs of gamma-irradiated animals. It also reduces radiation degradation of DNA, its availability to DNase in the nuclear chromatin and disorders in the activity of DNA polymerases. The role of inhibition of radiation-induced degradation of chromatin DNA in the protective effect of altitude adaptation on the cell density of lymph organs is discussed.

PMID:
207927
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

And there is a key issue with the ignorance of your argument. Cell denisty, and other factors that differ from plants and animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_radiation

In evolutionary biology, adaptive radiation is the evolution of ecological and phenotypic diversity within a rapidly multiplying lineage.[1] Starting with a recent single ancestor, this process results in the speciation and phenotypic adaptation of an array of species exhibiting different morphological and physiological traits with which they can exploit a range of divergent environments. [1]

Adaptive radiation, a characteristic example of cladogenesis, can be graphically illustrated as a "bush", or clade, of coexisting species (on the tree of life).[2]

Life is electromagnetic phenomenon.. Everything around you is electromagnetic with the exception of pressure waves and sound waves. ..Not sure if you comprehend this or not, but I suggest you do.. Exposing animals to radiation is dependent on how much, and it's not usually a positive thing to expose an living organism, plant or animal, to higher levels of radiation than their natural environment generally has. Telling me that the examples I gave you are like the ruby grapefruit is indeed meaningless to me, and way apparently beyond your understanding here. This might help you:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-electro ... iation.htm

Abstract:

Electromagnetic radiation is a term used to describe a stream of energy-bearing particles that travels outward from an electromagnetic source. The energy in these streams can vary extensively in power, and is measured by the electromagnetic spectrum. Electromagnetic radiation can be beneficial, harmless or extremely dangerous to humans, depending on the source, level of radiation, and duration of exposure.

There are both natural and man-made sources of electromagnetic radiation. The sun, for instance, is an intense source of radiation that can have both positive and negative effects on living things. The sun also produces both visible and invisible electromagnetic streams. Ultraviolet rays from the sun are invisible and cause sunburn and skin cancer if overexposure occurs. A rainbow, however, is a visible and harmless part of the electromagnetic effect caused by the sun, as human eyes detect the visible wavelengths of light as different colors.

you can also find recent positive gene mutations in the human species:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... eage-12397
http://creation.com/ccr5delta32-a-very- ... l-mutation
http://bigthink.com/ideas/40500?page=all
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -evolution
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.0030090
http://esciencenews.com/dictionary/beneficial.mutations

Do you, Jackelantern, have any proof to support your argument?

Yes I do, your own response to my post is electromagnetic phenomenon. And example of system feedback, and a complex adaptive system..

You analogy with a coastline never change from the result of waves crashing into it is meaningless, as your analogy, is based on non-living matter.

atoms are non living matter son... You are made of atoms, and you as a life form are an emergent property of those atoms. You are an electromagnetic phenomenon. Atoms that make up your body produce the living organism you are as they do the non-living things such as the individual atoms themselves... To understand this, you need to understand the definition of life and what non-living matter must do to be considered a living organism.. And again, fire is also a electromagnetic phenomenon, and it can easily fit into the definition of life. And this makes defining what life is rather difficult because we are also electromagnetic phenomenon.

My only contention is that I am not convinced that small minor changes (micro-evolution) eventually leads to major changes (macro-evolution).

That's like believing rust wont eventually consume the entire car over time. Or ignoring why you have a tailbone since you're not supposed to be a mammal, or related to the primate family under the creationist point of view.. Again you need to stop with the ignorance and learn what macro and micro evolutions is:

As much as I have read, it appears that an organism can only change to a certain degree and then it can go no further.

Please provide me a scientific peer reviewed paper that establishes this as a fact. As much as I have read in your posts, you don't even understand what evolution is, and you consistently confuse it with abiogenesis. You also ignore what macro-evolution is.. Please go back to the video I posted on the subject. Because you are now arguing a Pyratt.


A manatee is another very good example of Avatism and evolution:



Perfect example of natural selection, and macro/mirco-evolution:

Are you, TheJackelantern, claiming that a fly or a gnat or a mosquito evolved from one another?

You really are dunce aren't you?

Has it been demonstrated in laboratory experiments that a fly could become a creature with an entirely different body type?

Please define body type.. Because you are definitely showing your creationist colors here. Because if I gave you an example of salmon, you will resort to fish type right? And then I give you sharks, and you will be like, not fish type..shark type. But The horse example I gave you earlier really killed your entire argument, but you will go back to it's a horse. Ask you to classify a limbless salamander from a snake or eel and I get avoidance. However, you are proving to be a dishonest twit who can't deal with what evolution actually is.. Evolution doesn't mean flies turn into birds.. and then I get this crap post from you:

I read elsewhere that even though flies ... er wasps.

Seems you are conflicted and need to move the goal post again.. Don't worry your ignorance of homologous was already pointed out by it's actual definition a few posts back, and you seem completely clueless as to what you are talking about. And it's no surprise you keep posting the same damn thing over and over again to which has already been debunked.. Please stop copy pasting retardation from creationist sites. :/

I do not believe, however, that the changes were brought about by small mutations that eventually lead to the modern horse.

Yes because intentional ignorance is necessary for your beliefs. It was magic!

Different kinds of creatures were created with a great deal of genetic information.

Do you have a peer reviewed scientific paper to prove that argument?


Natural selection can eliminate certain pre-existing genetic information, by eliminating creatures not suited to a particular environment. Thus, many different varieties can be produced in different environments.

Trying to copy paste what science says into a creationist assertion of creation is dishonest and quote mining science out of context to form a creationist argument that has no factual or evidential basis.

Also, much of this genetic information may have been hidden in the original created kinds. (That is, the features coded for are not expressed in the offspring.)

Is that why people can have fully functional tails? Nice fail!.. GOD just plants evidence to make it look like evolution!.. / sarcasm.. And please provide me with a peer reviewed paper on this subject..

Scientists have also found that genetic information also had other controlling or regulatory genes that switch other genes ‘on’ or ‘off.’

That's not evidence for creationism son.. Avatism is not your friend here.

That is, they control whether or not the information in a gene will be decoded, so the trait will be expressed in the creature.

Yes, and gene duplication can occur to, or other means in which new traits and be introduced. You are delusional if you think this only happens in cases of recessive genes turning on or off...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4703000338
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /119.short

Those sighting the above:

S. D. Copley
Toward a Systems Biology Perspective on Enzyme EvolutionJ. Biol. Chem. January 2, 2012 287:3-10
Full Text (PDF)
A. Y.-F. Chang
and B.-Y. Liao

DNA Methylation Rebalances Gene Dosage after Mammalian Gene DuplicationsMol Biol Evol January 1, 2012 29:133-144
Abstract
Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
C. M. Hudson,
E. E. Puckett,
M. Bekaert,
J. C. Pires,
and G. C. Conant

Selection for Higher Gene Copy Number after Different Types of Plant Gene DuplicationsGenome Biol Evol December 15, 2011 3:1369-1380

Full Text (PDF)
A. Konrad,
A. I. Teufel,
J. A. Grahnen,
and D. A. Liberles

Toward a General Model for the Evolutionary Dynamics of Gene DuplicatesGenome Biol Evol November 1, 2011 3:1197-1209

Full Text (PDF)
N. R. Casewell,
S. C. Wagstaff,
R. A. Harrison,
C. Renjifo,
and W. Wuster

Domain Loss Facilitates Accelerated Evolution and Neofunctionalization of Duplicate Snake Venom Metalloproteinase Toxin GenesMol Biol Evol September 1, 2011 28:2637-2649

Full Text (PDF)
C. E. Arboleda-Bustos
and C. Segarra

The Dca Gene Involved in Cold Adaptation in Drosophila melanogaster Arose by Duplication of the Ancestral regucalcin GeneMol Biol Evol August 1, 2011 28:2185-2195

Full Text (PDF)
M. Bekaert,
P. P. Edger,
J. C. Pires,
and G. C. Conant

Two-Phase Resolution of Polyploidy in the Arabidopsis Metabolic Network Gives Rise to Relative and Absolute Dosage ConstraintsPlant Cell May 1, 2011 23:1719-1728

Full Text (PDF)
C. Deng,
C.- H. C. Cheng,
H. Ye,
X. He,
and L. Chen

Evolution of an antifreeze protein by neofunctionalization under escape from adaptive conflictProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA December 14, 2010 107:21593-21598

Full Text (PDF)
S.-L. Liu
and K. L. Adams

Dramatic Change in Function and Expression Pattern of a Gene Duplicated by Polyploidy Created a Paternal Effect Gene in the BrassicaceaeMol Biol Evol December 1, 2010 27:2817-2828

Full Text (PDF)
K. Nowick,
A. T. Hamilton,
H. Zhang,
and L. Stubbs

Rapid Sequence and Expression Divergence Suggest Selection for Novel Function in Primate-Specific KRAB-ZNF GenesMol Biol Evol November 1, 2010 27:2606-2617

Full Text (PDF)
A. J. Morash,
C. M. R. Le Moine,
and G. B. McClelland
Genome duplication events have led to a diversification in the CPT I gene family in fishAm. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. August 1, 2010 299:R579-R589

Full Text (PDF)
R. P. Meisel,
B. B. Hilldorfer,
J. L. Koch,
S. Lockton,
and S. W. Schaeffer

Adaptive Evolution of Genes Duplicated from the Drosophila pseudoobscura neo-X ChromosomeMol Biol Evol August 1, 2010 27:1963-1978

Full Text (PDF)
K. Geuten
and V. Irish

Hidden Variability of Floral Homeotic B Genes in Solanaceae Provides a Molecular Basis for the Evolution of Novel FunctionsPlant Cell August 1, 2010 22:2562-2578

Full Text (PDF)
A. C. Keebaugh
and J. W. Thomas

The Evolutionary Fate of the Genes Encoding the Purine Catabolic Enzymes in Hominoids, Birds, and ReptilesMol Biol Evol June 1, 2010 27:1359-1369

Full Text (PDF)
A. Himmelbach,
L. Liu,
U. Zierold,
L. Altschmied,
H. Maucher,
F. Beier,
D. Muller,
G. Hensel,
A. Heise,
A. Schutzendubel,
J. Kumlehn,
and P. Schweizer

Promoters of the Barley Germin-Like GER4 Gene Cluster Enable Strong Transgene Expression in Response to Pathogen AttackPlant Cell March 1, 2010 22:937-952


Full Text (PDF)
B. van Loo,
S. Jonas,
A. C. Babtie,
A. Benjdia,
O. Berteau,
M. Hyvonen,
and F. Hollfelder

An efficient, multiply promiscuous hydrolase in the alkaline phosphatase superfamilyProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA February 16, 2010 107:2740-2745

Full Text (PDF)
D. Farre
and M. M. Alba
Heterogeneous Patterns of Gene-Expression Diversification in Mammalian Gene DuplicatesMol Biol Evol February 1, 2010 27:325-335

Full Text (PDF)
S. F. Field
and M. V. Matz

Retracing Evolution of Red Fluorescence in GFP-Like Proteins from Faviina CoralsMol Biol Evol February 1, 2010 27:225-233


Full Text (PDF)
K. Nowick
and L. Stubbs

Lineage-specific transcription factors and the evolution of gene regulatory networksBriefings in Functional Genomics January 16, 2010 0:elp056v1-elp056

Full Text (PDF)
T. Lan,
Z.-L. Yang,
X. Yang,
Y.-J. Liu,
X.-R. Wang,
and Q.-Y. Zeng

Extensive Functional Diversification of the Populus Glutathione S-Transferase Supergene FamilyPlant Cell December 1, 2009 21:3749-3766

Full Text (PDF)
M. W. Hahn

Distinguishing Among Evolutionary Models for the Maintenance of Gene DuplicatesJ Hered September 1, 2009 100:605-617

Full Text (PDF)
C. Zou,
M. D. Lehti-Shiu,
F. Thibaud-Nissen,
T. Prakash,
C. R. Buell,
and S.-H. Shiu

Evolutionary and Expression Signatures of Pseudogenes in Arabidopsis and RicePlant Physiol. September 1, 2009 151:3-15

Full Text (PDF)
K. N. Rohmann,
D. L. Deitcher,
and A. H. Bass

Calcium-Activated Potassium (BK) Channels Are Encoded by Duplicate slo1 Genes in Teleost FishesMol Biol Evol July 1, 2009 26:1509-1521

Full Text (PDF)
N. P. West,
F. M. E. Chow,
E. J. Randall,
J. Wu,
J. Chen,
J. M. C. Ribeiro,
and W. J. Britton

Cutinase-like proteins of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: characterization of their variable enzymatic functions and active site identificationFASEB J. June 1, 2009 23:1694-1704

Full Text (PDF)
M. V. Han,
J. P. Demuth,
C. L. McGrath,
C. Casola,
and M. W. Hahn

Adaptive evolution of young gene duplicates in mammalsGenome Res May 1, 2009 19:859-867

Full Text (PDF)
C. J. Weadick
and B. S.W. Chang

Molecular Evolution of the {beta}{gamma} Lens Crystallin Superfamily: Evidence for a Retained Ancestral Function in {gamma}N Crystallins?Mol Biol Evol May 1, 2009 26:1127-1142

Full Text (PDF)
E. S. Kelleher
and T. A. Markow

Duplication, Selection and Gene Conversion in a Drosophila mojavensis Female Reproductive Protein FamilyGenetics April 1, 2009 181:1451-1465

Full Text (PDF)
W. Qian
and J. Zhang

Protein Subcellular Relocalization in the Evolution of Yeast Singleton and Duplicate GenesGenome Biol Evol January 1, 2009 1:198-204

Full Text (PDF)
S. Bershtein
and D. S. Tawfik
Ohno's Model Revisited: Measuring the Frequency of Potentially Adaptive Mutations under Various Mutational DriftsMol Biol Evol November 1, 2008 25:2311-2318

Full Text (PDF)
P. Juarez,
I. Comas,
F. Gonzalez-Candelas,
and J. J. Calvete

Evolution of Snake Venom Disintegrins by Positive Darwinian SelectionMol Biol Evol November 1, 2008 25:2391-2407

Full Text (PDF)
J. C. Opazo,
F. G. Hoffmann,
and J. F. Storz

Differential loss of embryonic globin genes during the radiation of placental mammalsProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA September 2, 2008 105:12950-12955

Full Text (PDF)
Q. Zhou,
G. Zhang,
Y. Zhang,
S. Xu,
R. Zhao,
Z. Zhan,
X. Li,
Y. Ding,
S. Yang,
and W. Wang

On the origin of new genes in DrosophilaGenome Res September 1, 2008 18:1446-1455

Full Text (PDF)
B. D. Rodgers
and D. K. Garikipati

Clinical, Agricultural, and Evolutionary Biology of Myostatin: A Comparative ReviewEndocr Rev August 1, 2008 29:513-534

Full Text (PDF)
S. Mungpakdee,
H.-C. Seo,
A. R. Angotzi,
X. Dong,
A. Akalin,
and D. Chourrout

Differential Evolution of the 13 Atlantic Salmon Hox ClustersMol Biol Evol July 1, 2008 25:1333-1343

Full Text (PDF)
M. W. Robinson,
J. F. Tort,
J. Lowther,
S. M. Donnelly,
E. Wong,
W. Xu,
C. M. Stack,
M. Padula,
B. Herbert,
and J. P. Dalton

Proteomics and Phylogenetic Analysis of the Cathepsin L Protease Family of the Helminth Pathogen Fasciola hepatica: Expansion of a Repertoire of Virulence-associated FactorsMol. Cell. Proteomics June 1, 2008 7:1111-1123

Full Text (PDF)
A. M. Wentzell
and D. J. Kliebenstein
Genotype, Age, Tissue, and Environment Regulate the Structural Outcome of Glucosinolate ActivationPlant Physiol. May 1, 2008 147:415-428

Full Text (PDF)
A. Prachumwat
and W.-H. Li
Gene number expansion and contraction in vertebrate genomes with respect to invertebrate genomesGenome Res February 1, 2008 18:221-232

Full Text (PDF)
T. Yuri,
R. T. Kimball,
E. L. Braun,
and M. J. Braun

Duplication of Accelerated Evolution and Growth Hormone Gene in Passerine BirdsMol Biol Evol February 1, 2008 25:352-361

Full Text (PDF)
A. Presser,
M. B. Elowitz,
M. Kellis,
and R. Kishony

The evolutionary dynamics of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae protein interaction network after duplicationProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA January 22, 2008 105:950-954

Full Text (PDF)
A. G. Koziol
and D. G. Durnford

Euglena Light-Harvesting Complexes Are Encoded by Multifarious Polyprotein mRNAs that Evolve in ConcertMol Biol Evol January 1, 2008 25:92-100

Full Text (PDF)
D. A. Johnson
and M. A. Thomas

The Monosaccharide Transporter Gene Family in Arabidopsis and Rice: A History of Duplications, Adaptive Evolution, and Functional DivergenceMol Biol Evol November 1, 2007 24:2412-2423


Full Text (PDF)
L. Goodstadt,
A. Heger,
C. Webber,
and C. P. Ponting

An analysis of the gene complement of a marsupial, Monodelphis domestica: Evolution of lineage-specific genes and giant chromosomesGenome Res July 1, 2007 17:969-981

Full Text (PDF)
Y. H. Gebhardt,
S. Witte,
H. Steuber,
U. Matern,
and S. Martens

Evolution of Flavone Synthase I from Parsley Flavanone 3beta-Hydroxylase by Site-Directed MutagenesisPlant Physiol. July 1, 2007 144:1442-1454

Full Text (PDF)
S. Bezhani,
C. Winter,
S. Hershman,
J. D. Wagner,
J. F. Kennedy,
C. S. Kwon,
J. Pfluger,
Y. Su,
and D. Wagner

Unique, Shared, and Redundant Roles for the Arabidopsis SWI/SNF Chromatin Remodeling ATPases BRAHMA and SPLAYEDPlant Cell February 1, 2007 19:403-416

Full Text (PDF)
C. R. Johnston,
C. O'Dushlaine,
D. A. Fitzpatrick,
R. J. Edwards,
and D. C. Shields

Evaluation of Whether Accelerated Protein Evolution in Chordates Has Occurred before, after, or Simultaneously with Gene DuplicationMol Biol Evol January 1, 2007 24:315-323

Full Text (PDF)
X. Yang,
G. A. Tuskan,
and Z.-M. Cheng
Divergence of the Dof Gene Families in Poplar, Arabidopsis, and Rice Suggests Multiple Modes of Gene Evolution after DuplicationPlant Physiol. November 1, 2006 142:820-830

Full Text (PDF)
P. C. Wainwright,
M. E. Alfaro,
D. I. Bolnick,
and C. D. Hulsey

Many-to-One Mapping of Form to Function: A General Principle in Organismal Design?Integr. Comp. Biol. April 1, 2005 45:256-262


Full Text (PDF)
J. Maciejowski,
J. H. Ahn,
P. G. Cipriani,
D. J. Killian,
A. L. Chaudhary,
J. I. Lee,
R. Voutev,
R. C. Johnsen,
D. L. Baillie,
K. C. Gunsalus,
D. H. A. Fitch,
and E. J. A. Hubbard

Autosomal Genes of Autosomal/X-Linked Duplicated Gene Pairs and Germ-Line Proliferation in Caenorhabditis elegansGenetics April 1, 2005 169:1997-2011

Full Text (PDF)
X. He
and J. Zhang

Rapid Subfunctionalization Accompanied by Prolonged and Substantial Neofunctionalization in Duplicate Gene EvolutionGenetics February 1, 2005 169:1157-1164

Full Text (PDF)
M. J. Prigge,
D. Otsuga,
J. M. Alonso,
J. R. Ecker,
G. N. Drews,
and S. E. Clark

Class III Homeodomain-Leucine Zipper Gene Family Members Have Overlapping, Antagonistic, and Distinct Roles in Arabidopsis DevelopmentPlant Cell January 1, 2005 17:61-76

Full Text (PDF)
T. H. Oakley,
Z. Gu,
E. Abouheif,
N. H. Patel,
and W.-H. Li

Comparative Methods for the Analysis of Gene-Expression Evolution: An Example Using Yeast Functional Genomic DataMol Biol Evol January 1, 2005 22:40-50

Full Text (PDF)
A. Reimann,
N. Nurhayati,
A. Backenkohler,
and D. Ober

Repeated Evolution of the Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid-Mediated Defense System in Separate Angiosperm LineagesPlant Cell October 1, 2004 16:2772-2784

Full Text (PDF)
E. M. Kramer,
M. A. Jaramillo,
and V. S. Di Stilio

Patterns of Gene Duplication and Functional Evolution During the Diversification of the AGAMOUS Subfamily of MADS Box Genes in AngiospermsGenetics February 1, 2004 166:1011-1023

Full Text (PDF)
V. Katju
and M. Lynch

The Structure and Early Evolution of Recently Arisen Gene Duplicates in the Caenorhabditis elegans GenomeGenetics December 1, 2003 165:1793-1803

Full Text (PDF)
F. Rodriguez-Trelles,
R. Tarrio,
and F. J. Ayala

Convergent neofunctionalization by positive Darwinian selection after ancient recurrent duplications of the xanthine dehydrogenase geneProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA November 11, 2003 100:13413-13417

Full Text (PDF)
W. L. Roelofs
and A. P. Rooney

Molecular genetics and evolution of pheromone biosynthesis in LepidopteraProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA August 5, 2003 100:9179-9184

Full Text (PDF)
S. Rombauts,
K. Florquin,
M. Lescot,
K. Marchal,
P. Rouze,
and Y. Van de Peer

The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate GenesScience November 10, 2000 290:1151-1155

Full Text (PDF)
G. N. Shah,
D. Hewett-Emmett,
J. H. Grubb,
M. C. Migas,
R. E. Fleming,
A. Waheed,
and W. S. Sly

Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genesProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA March 31, 1998 95:3708-3713

Full Text (PDF)
S. Xie,
J. Green,
J. B. Bixby,
B. Szafranska,
J. C. DeMartini,
S. Hecht,
and R. M. Roberts

And I see you copied pasted from this book to which doesn't post any peer review material, or even seem to do anything other than quote mine science out of context and try to mold it into a creationist talking point from pure and utter ignorance:

Evolution Or Creation?: A Comparison of the Arguments, Second Edition

This would enable very rapid changes, which are still changes involving already created information

Please provide a peer reviewed journal on that.. Because you conveniently leave out already existing junk dna, or genes acquired during it's evolution as a species. Traits that they find in their ancestors.. Kinda like AVATISM!.. and TAILS!.. Fun stuff!.

, not generation of new information.

That's funny, please provide a peer reviewed paper on that subject rather than copy pasting from creationist books that are not anything other than dishonest talking points. :

Comparison of phenotypic diversity and DNA heterogeneity in a population of soil bacteria.

V Torsvik,
K Salte,
R Sørheim and
J Goksøyr

+ Author Affiliations

Department of Microbiology and Plant Physiology, University of Bergen, Norway.

ABSTRACT

The phenotypic diversity of about 200 bacterial strains isolated from soil was compared with the genotypic diversity of the same population. The strains were phenotypically characterized by the API 20B test system. The results of these tests were subjected to cluster analysis, which revealed 41 biotypes at 80% similarity. The five dominating biotypes contained 43% of the strains. The phenotypic diversity as determined by the Shannon index, equitability, rarefaction, and cumulative differences was high, but indicated some dominant biotypes. The genetic diversity was measured by reassociation of mixtures of denatured DNA isolated from the bacterial strains (C0t plots). The observed genetic diversity was high. Reassociation of DNA from all bacterial strains together revealed that the population contained heterologous DNA equivalent to 20 totally different bacterial genomes (i.e., genomes that have no homology). This study showed that reassociation of DNA isolated from a collection of bacteria gave a good estimate of the diversity of the collection and that there was good agreement with different phenotypic diversity measures. The Shannon index in particular has features in common with the genetic diversity measure presented here.

Note that these changes only occur within a kind. This would be an example of microevolution.

A prime example that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Please provide a peer reviewed journal.

[TheJackelantern]

Do me a favor Critical thinker, don't even bother posting unless you can actual post something intelligent with actual peer reviewed material that comes from actual credible sources to which don't come from blog sites, or cheesy creationist talking point hand books. Your source material is terrible, along with your self-invention of goal post game of kinds and body types.. You already ignored 99 percent what's actually been stated here, and then repeated your pyratt copy pasted arguments.

[Critical_Thinker]

.php?p=429059#429059]Autodidact[/url]"]Critical_Thinker:

Your understanding of the history of science and ToE is mistaken. Darwinian evolution is the alternative to Lamarkism; it rejects and refutes Lamarkism.

vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
Hi Autodidact:
I agree that for the most part, Darwin did not agree with Lamarck. Lamarck believed that creatures progressed in a steady fashion towards improvement. Darwin, on the other hand, rejected this view. Darwin proposed that instead of creatures progressing toward more and more improvement, that creatures competed for the natural resources that exist in any environment. Darwin's view was different than Lamarck's because instead of creatures working in conjunction with the environment, in that Darwin believed (more correctly) that creatures struggle to survive.

Lamarck believed that organisms improved themselves by passing to their descendants characteristics that they acquired during their lifetimes. Lamarack
believed that only characteristics that the animal acquired as a result of willing them was passed on. To distinguish Darwin’s theory from that of Lamarck, Darwin (1809–1882) preferred to use the term “descent with modifications� rather than the word “evolution.� Although Darwin did not know how changes were transferred from one generation to the next, Darwin suggested that evolution somehow occurred by competition and selection, rather than by an adaptive force.

The part where I believe Darwin eventually agreed with Lamarck was how changes came about in a creature, that is, what the mechanism was that caused the changes. As I mentioned previously, the current view during Darwin's time was that offspring resulted from a blending of traits from both parents. When Darwin's opponents claimed that if blending of traits were true, then modifications would be rare, and less rare with each succeeding generation. That is the reason why I believe Darwin ended up utilizing Lamarck's theory. I apologize that I was unclear in my previous post.

How do you interpret the bolded phrase in the following statement that is included in Darwin's "Origins of Species":
“We here see that there is no need to separate single pairs, as man does, when he methodically improves a breed: natural selection will preserve and thus separate all the superior individuals, allowing them freely to intercross, and will destroy all the inferior individuals. By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined, no doubt, in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.� – (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter 7)
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- ^^^:

So what you're saying is that all Biologists are idiots or liars, and have accepted as foundational theory without supporting evidence? Is that what you really think?

vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 reply --- vvv
No, I am not saying this at all. Biologists are very intelligent and I respect them. It is just that those who believe in evolution view everything in light of evolution. As I mentioned previously, I do believe that evolution occurs, therefore I agree that there is evidence to support this. It is just that I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the view that a fish could become an amphibian, that an amphibian could become a reptile, or that a reptile could eventually become a mammal or a bird, or that a land animal could eventually become a whale.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 reply --- ^^^

[TheJackelantern]

Critical thinkers, we don't care what you think or believe.. Either provide peer reviewed work that substantiates your arguments or don't bother.. We are done playing with your Pratts, and copy pasting of non-credible arguments that largely come from people to whom aren't even scientists, or people to whom have no PHD's or published work in the fields they are making claims in.. The fact that I had to debunk you more than once on several issues is bad enough without having to go into how discredited the sources you used are..

I agree that for the most part, Darwin did not agree with Lamarck. Lamarck believed that creatures progressed in a steady fashion towards improvement. Darwin, on the other hand, rejected this view. Darwin proposed that instead of creatures progressing toward more and more improvement, that creatures competed for the natural resources that exist in any environment. Darwin's view was different than Lamarck's because instead of creatures working in conjunction with the environment, in that Darwin believed (more correctly) that creatures struggle to survive.

here's a video you really need to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6P91pk ... RE Simmons… - American Naturalist, 1996 - JSTOR
A classic example of extreme morphological adaptation to the environment is the neck of the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), a trait that most biologists since Darwin have attributed to competition with other mammalian browsers. However, in searching for present-day ...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... s-for-sex/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... g-neck-ii/
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/04 ... ount_f.php
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/5/57


http://evomech1.blogspot.com/2006/12/ev ... affes.html
http://www.bringyou.to/GiraffeEvolution.pdf
http://www.idlex.freeserve.co.uk/idle/e ... ssils.html

And yes, the Giraffe has an incomplete fossil record, congratulations on a poor example for your creationist argument that has no intellectual honesty, especially when it takes utter ignorance of everything we do know about evolution.

Here is another good source on issues dealing with evolution, followed by the listed peer reviewed journals:

http://www.mitochondrial.net/showcitati ... rial%20DNA

Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA.
J Mol Evol Jan 23, 1986
... divergence dates of species from DNA sequence data by a molecular ... set of DNA sequence data. The molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was ...

Sequence and organization of the human mitochondrial genome.
Nature Jun 13, 1981
... 16,569-base pair human mitochondrial genome is presented. The genes ... are not coded in the DNA but are created post-transcriptionally ...

Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: amplification and sequencing with cons
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Sep 19, 1989


Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA.
Nucleic Acids Res Jan 26, 1981
... of high molecular weight plant DNA (50,000 base pairs or ... yields total cellular DNA (i.e. nuclear, chloroplast, and mitochondrial DNA). The technique ... isolation of small amounts of DNA from many different species and ...

Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.
Nature Feb 19, 1987
Mitochondrial DNAs from 147 people, drawn from ... by restriction mapping. All these mitochondrial DNAs stem from one woman who ...

Rapid evolution of animal mitochondrial DNA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Aug 16, 1979
... map was constructed for the mitochondrial DNA of each species. Comparison of ... the degree of divergence in mitochondrial DNA against time of divergence, the ... mutation in mitochondrial DNA. Because of the high rate of evolution, mitochondrial DNA is ...

Mitochondrial DNA sequences of primates: tempo and mode of evolution.
J Mol Evol Sep 24, 1982
... and sequenced a segment of mitochondrial DNA from human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan ... times higher than in nuclear DNA. The most striking new finding ... substitution rate in the three mitochondrial tRNA genes is at least ...

The mitochondrial DNA molecular of Drosophila yakuba: nucleotide sequence, gene organizati
J Mol Evol Feb 14, 1986
... the 16,019 nucleotide-pair mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecule of Drosophila yakuba ... structures proposed for mammalian mitochondrial rRNAs. D. yakuba mitochondrial tRNA genes, like ... sequence than nonorganelle tRNAs. In mitochondrial protein genes ATG, ATT, ATA ...

Sequence and gene organization of mouse mitochondrial DNA.
Cell May 12, 1982
... ,295 bp mouse L cell mitochondrial DNA genome has been determined. Genes ... of open reading frames. Mouse mitochondrial DNA is unique in that the ... the orthodox UAA. The mouse mitochondrial DNA genome is highly homologous in ... in gene organization to human mitochondrial DNA, with the descending order of ...

Mitochondrial DNA mutation associated with Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy.
Science Jan 19, 1989
... degeneration and cardiac dysrhythmia. A mitochondrial DNA replacement mutation was identified that ... a nucleotide change in a mitochondrial DNA energy production gene can result ...

Premature ageing in mice expressing defective mitochondrial DNA polymerase.
Nature May 27, 2004
Point mutations and deletions of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) accumulate in a variety ...

Reduced-median-network analysis of complete mitochondrial DNA coding-region sequences for
Am J Hum Genet Apr 12, 2002
The evolution of the human mitochondrial genome is characterized by the ... Native American), and three African mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups have been identified ... extend the phylogenetic relationships among mitochondrial genomes described elsewhere from the ...

Changes in mitochondrial DNA as a marker of nucleoside toxicity in HIV-infected patients.
N Engl J Med Mar 14, 2002
... studied changes in mitochondrial DNA relative to nuclear DNA in the peripheral-blood ... in the ratios of mitochondrial to nuclear DNA, which, during therapy, averaged ... in mitochondrial DNA preceded the increase in venous lactate levels. CONCLUSIONS: Mitochondrial DNA levels ...

Deletions of muscle mitochondrial DNA in patients with mitochondrial myopathies.
Nature Mar 29, 1988
... studies of muscle mitochondrial metabolism in patients with mitochondrial myopathy have identified a variety of functional defects of the mitochondrial ... of which are encoded by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). The increased incidence of ...

Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequenc
Nature Nov 21, 1990
... to 803 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA from 14 representative Victorian species ... is virtually no sharing of mitochondrial DNA types among species. These results ...

African populations and the evolution of human mitochondrial DNA.
Science Oct 24, 1991
The proposal that all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) types in contemporary humans ...

Human mitochondrial DNA deletions associated with mutations in the gene encoding Twinkle,
Nat Genet Jun 29, 2001
... gene products involved in mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) maintenance and organization remain ... . We report here a novel mitochondrial protein, Twinkle, with structural similarity ... . Twinkle colocalizes with mtDNA in mitochondrial nucleoids. Screening of the gene ...

Bcl-2 blocks apoptosis in cells lacking mitochondrial DNA.
Nature Mar 02, 1993
... mainly located in the inner mitochondrial membrane. The latter study has ... cells from apoptosis by altering mitochondrial function and that mitochondria may ... mutant cell lines that lack mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and therefore do not ... of bcl-2 depends on mitochondrial respiration. We also show that ...

Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans.
Nature Dec 20, 2000
The analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been a potent ... less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome. These studies are complicated ... comprehensive studies of the human mitochondrial molecule have been carried out ... the information obtained from the mitochondrial molecule for studies of human ...

The telomeres of the linear mitochondrial DNA of Tetrahymena thermophila consist of 53 bp
Cell Oct 30, 1986
... and sequenced the telomeric DNA of the linear mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of T ... does not resemble known telomeric DNA in sequence, repeat size, or ... telomeric repeat with the internal DNA is at a different position ...

Mitochondrial DNA in human malignancy.
Mutat Res May 09, 2001
Alterations in expression of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)-encoded polypeptides required for ... general characteristic of cancer cells. Mitochondrial DNA has been proposed to be ... subunits of the mitochondrial electron respiratory chain may reflect mitochondrial adaptation to ...

Mitochondrial DNA mutations, oxidative stress, and apoptosis in mammalian aging.
Science Jul 15, 2005
Mutations in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) accumulate in tissues of ... proofreading-deficient version of the mitochondrial DNA polymerase g (POLG) accumulate mtDNA ...

A subtype of diabetes mellitus associated with a mutation of mitochondrial DNA.
N Engl J Med Apr 07, 1994
... in which a mutation of mitochondrial DNA, the substitution of guanine for ... with a syndrome consisting of mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis, and ... mutation at position 3243 of mitochondrial leucine transfer RNA represents a ...

Studies of mouse mitochondrial DNA in Escherichia coli: structure and function of the euca
Cell Jan 10, 1976
... contain the nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial DNA in their native relationship were ... of ribonucleotides found in native mitochondrial DNA. Hybridization of the RNA synthesized ... the mitochondrial DNA segment. Although specific polypeptide synthetis is directed by the mitochondrial DNA ...

In vitro replication of human mitochondrial DNA: accurate initiation at the origin of ligh
Cell Dec 02, 1985
... light-strand mitochondrial DNA was accomplished in vitro using DNA primase, DNA polymerase, and ... transition from RNA synthesis to DNA synthesis occurs near the base ... vivo nascent light-strand DNA. Isolated human mitochondrial enzymes recognize and utilize ...

The mitochondrial DNA of Drosophila melanogaster exists in two distinct and stable superhe
Cell Dec 29, 1977
... the structure and replication of mitochondrial DNA from Drosophila melanogaster embryos, larvae ... turns. In contrast, closed circular mitochondrial DNA isolated from Drosophila tissue culture ... hr). We conclude that Drosophila mitochondrial DNA utilizes a replication mechanism different ...

The transcription map of mouse mitochondrial DNA.
Cell Sep 25, 1978
... complementary to mouse L cell mitochondrial DNA have been detected, sized and ... 32P-labeled, cloned L cell mitochondrial DNA restriction fragments in 70% formamide ... most abundant transcripts homologous to mitochondrial DNA map adjacent to the origin ...

A role for recombination junctions in the segregation of mitochondrial DNA in yeast.
Cell Jul 19, 1995
In S. cerevisiae, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecules, in spite of ... units. The rapid segregation of mitochondrial genomes can be analyzed using ...

Polymorphic sites and the mechanism of evolution in human mitochondrial DNA.
Genetics May 21, 1984
... at 441 locations in the mitochondrial DNA of 112 humans from four ... the mitochondrial rRNA genes and the nuclear genes coding for mitochondrial ribosomal proteins, provides evidence for coevolution between specific nuclear and mitochondrial ...

Mapping of mitochondrial DNA of individual sheep and goats: rapid evolution in the D loop
Cell Sep 22, 1977
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from sheep and goat ... terms of divergence of isolated "mitochondrial DNA clones."

The tRNA genes punctuate the reading of genetic information in human mitochondrial DNA.
Cell Mar 17, 1981
... transcription map of HeLa cell mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been constructed by ... the physical map of the DNA. This transcription map has been ...

Maize mitochondrial DNA contains a sequence homologous to the ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate ca
Cell Dec 17, 1983
... (LS gene). The presence in mitochondrial DNA of both coding and flanking ... DNA sequences and second, by in vitro transcription-translation of cloned mitochondrial DNA ... 18S mitochondrial rRNA gene and approximately 20 kb from the mitochondrial DNA sequence ...

Mitochondrial DNA rearrangements associated with fertile revertants of S-type male-sterile
Cell Jan 29, 1986
The mitochondrial genome of the S-type ... be a collection of linear DNA molecules that are maintained by two linear episomal DNA species, S1 (6397 bp) and ... maternally inherited, analysis of the mitochondrial DNA reveals that the S1 and ...

Scrambled ribosomal RNA gene pieces in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii mitochondrial DNA.
Cell Dec 06, 1988
... (SSU) rRNA genes in the mitochondrial DNA of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Each gene ...

Location and structure of the var1 gene on yeast mitochondrial DNA: nucleotide sequence of
Cell Jan 07, 1983
... the var1 locus on yeast mitochondrial DNA specify the size of var1 ... with that predicted by the DNA sequence. The var1 coding region ...

The structures and fidelity of replication of mouse mitochondrial DNA-pSC 101 EcoRI recomb
Cell Nov 01, 1976
... DNAs containing the E. coli plasmid pSC101 and mouse cell (La9) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) were formed in vitro via ligation of DNA fragments ... . Four structurally different recombinant plasmid DNAs from transformed clones were characterized ...

Mitochondrial DNA transcription: regulating the power supply.
Cell Jul 30, 2007
... of mitochondrial DNA transcription initiation. This study highlights a mechanism by which mitochondrial DNA ...

The tRNAAGYSer and tRNACGYArg genes from a gene cluster in yeast mitochondrial DNA.
Cell May 30, 1980
Yeast mitochondrial DNA-pBR322 recombinant DNA molecules screened for rRNA genes ... used as a source of DNA for mitochondrial tRNA gene sequence analysis ... demonstrates unequivocally the presence of mitochondrial encoded serine tRNA isoacceptors. The ...

Native American mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates that the Amerind and the Nadene popul
Genetics Feb 25, 1992
Mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) from 167 American Indians ...

Mutant mitochondrial thymidine kinase in mitochondrial DNA depletion myopathy.
Nat Genet Nov 05, 2001
... myopathy and depletion of muscular mitochondrial DNA in infancy. In these individuals ... etiology for mitochondrial DNA depletion, underscoring the importance of the mitochondrial dNTP pool in the pathogenesis of mitochondrial depletion.

Paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA in mice see comments]
Nature Aug 28, 1991
... of low-resolution experiments that mitochondrial (mt)DNA, in contrast to the ... generating heteroplasmy and may explain mitochondrial disorders exhibiting biparental transmission.

Postfertilization Autophagy of Sperm Organelles Prevents Paternal Mitochondrial DNA Transmission.
Science Oct 28, 2011
... most animals, the spermatozoon provides DNA and centrioles, together with some ... of both paternal structures and mitochondrial DNA requires an LC3-dependent autophagy ... both the transmission of paternal mitochondrial DNA to the offspring and the ...

Facile detection of mitochondrial DNA mutations in tumors and bodily fluids.
Science Apr 04, 2000
... revealed a high frequency of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations. The majority of ... DNA. By virtue of their clonal nature and high copy number, mitochondrial ...

Mitochondrial DNA mutations in human disease.
Am J Med Genet Oct 01, 2001
The small, maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has turned out to ... into the era of "molecular mitochondrial medicine," more than 100 pathogenic ... mitochondrial genetics, we consider disorders due to mutations in genes affecting mitochondrial ...

Mitochondrial DNA depletion and morphologic changes in adipocytes associated with nucleosi
AIDS Jun 11, 2003
... cellular mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) depletion, determinants of cellular mtDNA copy number and mitochondrial ... PCR-based assay, and adipocyte mitochondrial protein content was also measured ... associated with mtDNA depletion and mitochondrial proliferation in adipocytes, consistent with ...

Mitochondrial DNA maintenance in vertebrates.
Annu Rev Biochem Oct 07, 1997
The discovery that mutations in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) can be pathogenic in ... factors for gene expression, DNA replication, and DNA repair. These processes are ... and imported into the mitochondrion. DNA replication and transcription are linked ... . Study of this transcription-primed DNA replication mechanism has led to ...

Phylogeny of east Asian mitochondrial DNA lineages inferred from complete sequences.
Am J Hum Genet Aug 20, 2003
The now-emerging mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) population genomics provides information ... well as for studies of mitochondrial diseases in East and Southeast ...

Identification of a mononucleotide repeat as a major target for mitochondrial DNA alterati
Cancer Res Oct 04, 2001
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations scattered through coding ...

Mitochondrial control of nuclear apoptosis.
J Exp Med Aug 05, 1996
... endonuclease-mediated DNA fragmentation), they undergo a reduction of the mitochondrial transmembrane ... present direct evidence indicating that mitochondrial PT constitutes a critical early ... . A specific ligand of the mitochondrial adenine nucleotide translocator (ANT), bongkreik ...

Primers for mitochondrial DNA replication generated by endonuclease G.
Science Aug 31, 1993
... distributed among animals and cleaves DNA at double-stranded (dG)n ... mitochondrial RNA and DNA-RNA substrates containing the origin of heavy-strand DNA ... RNA primers required by DNA polymerase gamma to initiate replication of mitochondrial DNA.

Mitochondrial DNA analyses and the origin and relative age of parthenogenetic lizards (gen
Science May 23, 1979
... C. tigris and C. septemvittatus. Mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited maternally, was ... these species. Analyses of the mitochondrial DNA's and their restriction endonuclease ...

Linkage disequilibrium and recombination in hominid mitochondrial DNA.
Science Jan 11, 2000
The assumption that human mitochondrial DNA is inherited from one parent ... disequilibrium in human and chimpanzee mitochondrial DNA declines as a function of ...

Suppression of mutations in mitochondrial DNA by tRNAs imported from the cytoplasm.
Science Sep 27, 2000
Mitochondrial import of a cytoplasmic transfer ... due to mutations in the mitochondrial DNA and whether this system can ... the mitochondria and participate in mitochondrial translation. We also show that ...

Heteroplasmy suggests limited biparental inheritance of Mytilus mitochondrial DNA.
Science Apr 23, 1991
... mitochondrial DNA is commonly observed in animals. There is usually only one mitochondrial DNA ... individuals examined, 85 were heteroplasmic. Mitochondrial DNA types within heteroplasmic individuals differed ... . Homoplasmic individuals with mitochondrial DNA similar to the heteroplasmic mitochondrial DNA types were found ...

Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA comparisons reveal extreme rate variation in the molecular c
Science Oct 23, 1986
... vertebrate mitochondrial DNA is rapid, compared to the rate for vertebrate nuclear DNA ... the rapid rate of vertebrate mitochondrial DNA evolution is, in part, an ... nuclear DNA evolution. This disparity in relative rates of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA ...

Tandem duplication of D-loop and ribosomal RNA sequences in lizard mitochondrial DNA.
Science Oct 17, 1986
Some Cnemidophorus exsanguis have mitochondrial DNA's (mtDNA's) that are ... .4 kb. Restriction site mapping, DNA transfer hybridization experiments, and electron ...

Aconitase couples metabolic regulation to mitochondrial DNA maintenance.
Science Feb 04, 2005
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is essential for cells ... is inherited as a protein-DNA complex called the nucleoid. We ... in yeast, among which is mitochondrial aconitase (Aco1p). We show that ...

Mitochondrial DNA is a major cellular target for a dihydrodiol-epoxide derivative of benzo
Science Aug 28, 1980
... mitochondrial DNA is 40 to 90 times greater than that of nuclear DNA ... lipid to DNA in mitochondria. These results suggest that mitochondrial DNA may be ...

Preferential attack of mitochondrial DNA by aflatoxin B1 during hepatocarcinogenesis.
Science Feb 25, 1982
... liver mitochondrial DNA at concentrations three to four times higher than nuclear DNA. The concentration of carcinogen adducts in mitochondrial DNA remains unchanged ... lack of excision repair. Similarly, mitochondrial transcription and translation remain inhibited ...

Heterogeneous mitochondrial DNA D-loop sequences in bovine tissue.
Cell Aug 24, 1984
Mitochondrial DNA from bovine tissue contains heterogeneous ... mitochondrial genome is known to contain the origin of heavy strand DNA ... . Nucleotide sequence analysis of cloned DNA and electrophoretic analysis of appropriate ...

Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA replication during zygote formation and maturation in yeast.
Science Dec 23, 1976
Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA replication were monitered during the ... . Nuclear DNA replicated discontinuously but coincidently with bud initiation, while mitochondrial DNA replicated ... level of both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA.

The unusual varl gene of yeast mitochondrial DNA.
Science Aug 01, 1985
... only mitochondrial ribosomal protein known to be encoded by yeast mitochondrial DNA. The ...

Mitochondrial DNA mutations and pathogenesis.
J Bioenerg Biomembr Sep 25, 1997
... analysis of mitochondrial encephalomyopathies, with emphasis on defects in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). At ...

Hydrogen peroxide- and peroxynitrite-induced mitochondrial DNA damage and dysfunction in v
Circ Res Jun 14, 2000
... and smooth muscle cells, the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was preferentially damaged relative ... was associated with RS treatment. Mitochondrial protein synthesis was also inhibited ... decreased cellular ATP levels and mitochondrial redox function. Overall, endothelial cells ...

A direct repeat is a hotspot for large-scale deletion of human mitochondrial DNA.
Science May 26, 1989
... harbor large deletions in their mitochondrial genomes. The deletions differ in ... direct repeat in the normal mitochondrial genome. This result suggests that ... deleting large regions of intervening mitochondrial DNA, which previously had been observed ...

Mitochondrial plasmids of Neurospora: integration into mitochondrial DNA and evidence for
Cell Dec 30, 1986
... kb) mitochondrial plasmids of Neurospora are closely related, closed circular DNAs whose nucleotide sequences and genetic organization suggest relationships to mitochondrial ... contain defective mtDNAs into which mitochondrial plasmid sequences have integrated. Sequences ...

Mitochondrial DNA deletions in human brain: regional variability and increase with advance
Nat Genet Jun 23, 1993
... examined the role of somatic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations in human ageing ...

Oxidative stress, mitochondrial DNA mutation, and impairment of antioxidant enzymes in agi
Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Sep 26, 2002
... elicit apoptosis by induction of mitochondrial membrane permeability transition and release ... -scale deletion and duplication of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have been found to ... been demonstrated that impairment in mitochondrial respiration and oxidative phosphorylation elicits ...

Chapter 6 Mass spectrometric characterization of the thirteen subunits of bovine respiratory complexes that are encoded in mitochondrial DNA.
Methods Enzymol Apr 07, 2009
... sequences of human and bovine mitochondrial DNA were described in 1981 and ... analyzing the proteins encoded in mitochondrial DNAs in other species, for analyzing ... the 13 proteins encoded in mitochondrial DNA. In contrast to the highly ...

Length mutations in human mitochondrial DNA.
Genetics Nov 23, 1983
... high-resolution, restriction mapping of mitochondrial DNAs purified from 112 human individuals ... being comparatively rare in coding DNA. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that, in ... mtDNA than for noncoding nuclear DNA. The mystery of why vertebrate ...

ROS-Generating Mitochondrial DNA Mutations Can Regulate Tumor Cell Metastasis.
Science Apr 04, 2008
Mutations in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) occur at high frequency ...

A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region.
Nat Genet Apr 25, 1997
... of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is ... the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable ...

Mitochondrial DNA maintenance in yeast requires a protein containing a region related to t
Genes Dev Apr 17, 1992
... gene products replicate and partition mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecules in the yeast ... that cells can partition single mitochondrial genomes, and that when a ...

Senescence in Podospora anserina: amplification of a mitochondrial DNA sequence.
Cell Nov 24, 1980
... under cytoplasmic control. Comparison of DNAs isolated from young and senescent ... only, of a specific DNA (SEN-DNA). This DNA consists of repeated sequences ... have examined one particular SEN-DNA whose monomer unit is 6300 ... SEN-DNA results from the amplication of a sequence of the mitochondrial ...

Analysis of transcriptional initiation of yeast mitochondrial DNA in a homologous in vitro
Cell Apr 07, 1983
... for yeast mitochondrial rRNA genes. Using highly purified yeast mitochondrial RNA polymerase and bacterial plasmids carrying DNA segments containing the mitochondrial ... to permit accurate transcription of mitochondrial protein genes.

Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: applic
Genetics Sep 08, 1992
... a single species. Information on DNA haplotype divergence is incorporated into ... . Application of AMOVA to human mitochondrial DNA haplotype data shows that population ...

The yeast nuclear gene NAM2 is essential for mitochondrial DNA integrity and can cure a mi
Cell Jul 12, 1985
... the fourth intron of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. This maturase ... the fourth intron of the mitochondrial gene oxi3 encoding cytochrome oxidase ... to the destruction of the mitochondrial genome with the production of ...

Insertion of a foreign nucleotide sequence into mitochondrial DNA causes senescence in Neu
Cell Jul 31, 1985
... and is inserted into the mitochondrial chromosome, often at sites located ... intron-DNA of the mitochondrial 25S-rRNA gene. Genomes containing the "foreign" DNA ... large and small subunits of mitochondrial ribosomes. The kalDNA transposon may ...

Repair of 8-oxodeoxyguanosine lesions in mitochondrial dna depends on the oxoguanine dna g
Cancer Res Jul 16, 2001
... products of DNA oxidation, 8-oxodeoxyguanosine (8-oxodG), accumulates in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) at levels three times higher than in nuclear DNA ... the mitochondrial 8-oxodG DNA glycosylase/apurinic DNA lyase activity is the mitochondrial isoform ...

Respiratory deficiency due to loss of mitochondrial DNA in yeast lacking the frataxin homo
Nat Genet Aug 28, 1997
... and is required to maintain mitochondrial DNA. The YFH1-homologous domain of ... function. Our data suggest that mitochondrial dysfunction contributes to FRDA pathophysiology.

Direct evidence for extensive paternal mitochondrial DNA inheritance in the marine mussel
Nature Nov 16, 1992
Inheritance of mitochondrial DNA in animals was thought to ...

Antiquity of clonal salamander lineages revealed by mitochondrial DNA.
Nature May 28, 1992
... have short lifespans. Variation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) within clonal populations is ...

Influence of seasonal migration on geographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes
Nature Apr 20, 1990
... looked for variation in the mitochondrial DNA of 84 individual humpback whales ... report a marked segregation of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes among subpopulations as well ...

Neotropical Africanized honey bees have African mitochondrial DNA.
Nature Jun 19, 1989
... . Restriction site mapping of 62 mitochondrial DNAs of African bees from Brazil ...

High frequency of homoplasmic mitochondrial DNA mutations in human tumors can be explained
Nat Genet May 30, 2001
... a high frequency of homoplasmic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations in human tumors ... on the available data on mitochondrial mutant fractions and cell division ...

Mitochondrial DNA mutations and apoptosis in Mammalian aging.
Cancer Res Aug 03, 2006
Mutations in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) accumulate during aging, but ...

Nucleotide sequence of a region of human mitochondrial DNA containing the precisely identi
Nature Nov 25, 1980
A fragment of HeLa cell mitochondrial DNA containing the origin of replicaton ... heavy strand initiation fragment (7S DNA), and by aligning the two ...

Mitochondrial cytochrome c release in apoptosis occurs upstream of DEVD-specific caspase a
EMBO J Feb 26, 1998
... substrate cleavage. A reduction in mitochondrial transmembrane potential (Deltapsim) occurred considerably ... , and was not necessary for DNA fragmentation. Although zVAD-fmk substantially ... cytosol does not require a mitochondrial transmembrane depolarization.

Evolutionary genetics. Clonal inheritance of avian mitochondrial DNA.
Nature Sep 06, 2001
... of clonal inheritance of vertebrate mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) by relating its inheritance ... female-specific marker of nuclear DNA. Whereas this is impossible in ...

High incidence of somatic mitochondrial DNA mutations in human ovarian carcinomas.
Cancer Res Aug 16, 2001
... the potential role of somatic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations in tumorigenesis, the ...

Conformational mutations in human mitochondrial DNA.
Nature Oct 19, 1987
Variation in the human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence has been extensively ...

Ancestral sequence reconstruction in primate mitochondrial DNA: compositional bias and eff
Mol Biol Evol Sep 09, 2004
... in nucleotide frequencies in primate mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). To better understand this ... ancestral states. We analyzed primate mitochondrial cytochrome b (Cyt-b) and ... of functional properties, ancestral primate mitochondrial tRNA sequences were inferred and ...

Mammalian mitochondrial DNA replicates bidirectionally from an initiation zone.
J Biol Chem Dec 15, 2003
... suggested that replication of mammalian mitochondrial DNA initiates exclusively at or near ... intermediates demonstrate that replication of mitochondrial DNA initiates from multiple origins across ...

An ancestral mitochondrial DNA resembling a eubacterial genome in miniature.
Nature Jun 19, 1997
... of alpha-proteobacteria. Because characterized mitochondrial genomes vary markedly in structure ... proto-mitochondrial genome. This would require the identification of minimally derived mitochondrial DNAs ... expression not found before in mitochondrial genomes indicate that R. americana ...

Rates of mitochondrial DNA evolution in sharks are slow compared with mammals.
Nature Jun 11, 1992
The rate of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evolution has been carefully ...

The fingerprint of phantom mutations in mitochondrial DNA data.
Hum Genet Oct 25, 2002
... sequencing process itself. In sequenced mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), they generate a hotspot ...

Role of mitochondria in oxidative stress and aging.
Ann N Y Acad Sci Apr 26, 2002
The mitochondrial respiratory chain is a powerful ... . The mitochondrial theory of aging considers somatic mutations of mitochondrial DNA induced by ... rate limiting for electron transfer. Mitochondrial energetics is also deranged in ...

An autosomal dominant disorder with multiple deletions of mitochondrial DNA starting at th
Nature Jun 27, 1989
... muscle mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have recently been found in patients with mitochondrial myopathy ... a family with autosomal dominant mitochondrial myopathy. Multiple deletions, involving the ... destroy the integrity of the mitochondrial genome in a specific, heritable ...

Heteroplasmic mitochondrial DNA mutations in normal and tumour cells.
Nature Mar 04, 2010
... of hundreds of copies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in each human cell ... sequences and have implications for mitochondrial processes during embryogenesis, cancer biomarker ... a complex mixture of related mitochondrial genotypes rather than a single ...

Origin of tetrapods inferred from their mitochondrial DNA affiliation to lungfish.
J Mol Evol Feb 07, 1991
... addressed by the study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences. For decades, it ...

Oh and I can go on:

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 04072.html

Regional Patterns of Gene Expression in Human and Chimpanzee Brains:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/8/1462.full#TBL1

Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1116 ... t=Abstract

Abiogenes:The Triplet Code From First Principles:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys745 ... etcode.pdf (pdf file)


Or lets talk about those insects like flies and locus again so you might actually understand speciation and gene duplication ect. :

Reporting in the journal PNAS, scientists suggest that speciation in Drosophila may involve gene duplication . See below:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picren ... obtype=pdf

[TheJackelantern]

Again Critical thinker, don't waste our time with non-peer reviewed crap..

[Autodidact]

Your understanding of the history of science and ToE is mistaken. Darwinian evolution is the alternative to Lamarkism; it rejects and refutes Lamarkism.

vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- vvv:
Hi Autodidact:
I agree that for the most part, Darwin did not agree with Lamarck. Lamarck believed that creatures progressed in a steady fashion towards improvement. Darwin, on the other hand, rejected this view. Darwin proposed that instead of creatures progressing toward more and more improvement, that creatures competed for the natural resources that exist in any environment. Darwin's view was different than Lamarck's because instead of creatures working in conjunction with the environment, in that Darwin believed (more correctly) that creatures struggle to survive.

Lamarck believed that organisms improved themselves by passing to their descendants characteristics that they acquired during their lifetimes. Lamarack
believed that only characteristics that the animal acquired as a result of willing them was passed on. To distinguish Darwin’s theory from that of Lamarck, Darwin (1809–1882) preferred to use the term “descent with modifications� rather than the word “evolution.� Although Darwin did not know how changes were transferred from one generation to the next, Darwin suggested that evolution somehow occurred by competition and selection, rather than by an adaptive force.

The part where I believe Darwin eventually agreed with Lamarck was how changes came about in a creature, that is, what the mechanism was that caused the changes. As I mentioned previously, the current view during Darwin's time was that offspring resulted from a blending of traits from both parents. When Darwin's opponents claimed that if blending of traits were true, then modifications would be rare, and less rare with each succeeding generation. That is the reason why I believe Darwin ended up utilizing Lamarck's theory. I apologize that I was unclear in my previous post.

How do you interpret the bolded phrase in the following statement that is included in Darwin's "Origins of Species":
“We here see that there is no need to separate single pairs, as man does, when he methodically improves a breed: natural selection will preserve and thus separate all the superior individuals, allowing them freely to intercross, and will destroy all the inferior individuals. By this process long-continued, which exactly corresponds with what I have called unconscious selection by man, combined, no doubt, in a most important manner with the inherited effects of the increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.� – (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter 7)
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 response --- ^^^:

Darwin did not have a good understanding of genetics. Our modern understanding of genetics was incorporated into ToE fully by 1950. The contemporary ToE, which is based on, but goes far beyond, Darwin's theory, includes the understanding of genetics that Darwin lacked.

So what you're saying is that all Biologists are idiots or liars, and have accepted as foundational theory without supporting evidence? Is that what you really think?

vvv --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 reply --- vvv
No, I am not saying this at all. Biologists are very intelligent and I respect them. It is just that those who believe in evolution view everything in light of evolution.

You do that is 99% of them, right?

As I mentioned previously, I do believe that evolution occurs, therefore I agree that there is evidence to support this. It is just that I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the view that a fish could become an amphibian, that an amphibian could become a reptile, or that a reptile could eventually become a mammal or a bird, or that a land animal could eventually become a whale.
^^^ --- Critical_Thinker 1/18/2012 reply --- ^^^

Uh, o.k., because ToE doesn't say that any of those things happen. ToE is about gradual changes to entire populations over vast stretches of time. Under ToE, no fish ever becomes an amphibian.

Do you agree that new species have been shown to arise in nature and the lab?

btw, what is your explanation for the diversity of species on earth? Please supply not a name of a being, but a process or mechanism. Thanks.